JOHN M. KELLY LIBRARY
DONATED IN MEMORY O
DR. GEORGE HEIMAN
St. Michael s College, Toronto
WORKS OF ARISTOTLE
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH
UNDER THE EDITORSHIP
SIR DAVID ROSS
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
Oxford University Press, Amen House, London E.C. 4
GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS CAPE TOWN
Geoffrey Cumberlege, Publisher to the University
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
IT was suggested to me many years ago by Prof. A. E. Taylor
that a translation of some of the fragments of Aristotle s lost
works would be a useful addition to the Oxford Translation
of the extant works. I then thought that I had enough on
my hands without this addition. In the interval, however,
interest in the fragments has been quickened by the pioneer
work of such scholars as Prof. Jaeger, Prof. Bignone, and
Prof. Wilpert, and many passages not included in Rose s
editions of the fragments have been recognized as being
derived from Aristotle s lost works.
A translation of the whole of the fragments included by
Rose would not be of much general interest, and I have
thought it best to limit this selection to three of the sections
in his editions the dialogues, the logical works, and the
philosophical works. The references in the notes to this trans
lation are to the page and line of Rose s Teubner edition. At the
same time I have included many other passages which have
been with probability assigned to Aristotle by the scholars
named above and others. I must in particular express my
indebtedness to Dr. R. Walzer, who has not only published
a useful edition of some of the fragments, but has called my
attention to others which would otherwise have escaped my
notice, and has lent me some useful books and articles.
It is not intended to make any further addition to the
Oxford Translation of Aristotle.
W. D. R.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Gryllus, or On Rhetoric 7
Eudemus, or On Soul 16-23
On J^da//A 57
On Prayer 58
On Good Birth 59-62
Ow Kingship 65-66
Ow Po^s 72-77
On Philosophy 78-99
Ow Justice 100-2
LOGICAL WORKS 103-14
On Problems 104
On Contraries 109-14
PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS H5~49
Ow #w Gocwi 115-23
On ideas 124-33
On ^ Pythagoreans 134-46
/Ad Philosophy of Archytas 147
On Democritus 148-9
AUTHORS QUOTED 150
ROSE S NUMBERING OF FRAGMENTS 155
THE oldest lists of Aristotle s works that have come down to
us from antiquity are those written by Diogenes Laertius, in
the third century A.D., and by Hesychius, probably in the
fifth. A strong case has been made out by E. Howald 1 for the
view that both lists rest on the good authority of Hermippus
(about 200 B.C.).
Diogenes list begins as follows:
On Justice, 4 books 2
On Poets, 3 books 3
On Philosophy, 3 books 4
Politicus, 2 books 5
On Rhetoric, or Gryllus, I book 6
Nerinthus, i book
Sophistes, i book
Menexenus, i book
Eroticus, i book
Symposium, i book 7
On Wealth, i book
Protrepticits, i book
On Soul* i book
On Prayer, i book
On Good Birth, 9 i book
1 In Hermes, 1920, 204-21.
1 Cicero, p. 100 infra, refers to its four books; Suetonius, p. 100 infra,
refers to the first book.
3 Diogenes Laertius, p. 73 infra, refers to book i ; Macrobius, p. 75 infra,
to book 2 ; Ps.-Plutarch, p. 76 infra, to book 3.
4 Hesychius says 4 books ; Syrianus, p. 83 infra, refers to book 2;
Philodemus, p. 78 infra, and Cicero, p. 97 infra, refer to book 3.
5 woAiTiKoC d j5 4 MSS. of Diogenes; irtpi irohriKov i MS. of Diogenes;
noXiTiKov d Hesychius. Syrianus, p. 68 infra, refers to the second book.
6 3 books , Hesychius.
7 From pp. 11-14 */ ra we may infer that this work was also known as
the work On Drunkenness.
8 We learn from Plutarch, pp. 16, 18 infra, and from Simplicius, p. 21
infra, that this was also called Eudemus.
9 Plutarch says, p. 60 infra, that the genuineness of this work is doubtful,
On Pleasure, i book
Alexander, or On Colonists, 1 i book
On Kingship, i book
On Education, i book.
The list goes on to
On the Good, 3 books
From Plato s Laws, 3 books
From the Republic, 2 books
On Economy, i book
On Friendship, i book,
and so on.
It is clear that the first nineteen works in Diogenes list
formed for him a separate group, arranged according to the
number of books each work contained, and that from it he
went on to a second group similarly arranged. The same
nineteen works appear at the beginning of Hesychius list,
except that the Alexander appears a little later and its place
is taken by the Economicus.
Some of these works are known to have been dialogues.
The works On Poets, On Philosophy, and On Soul (orEudemus)
are explicitly so described by ancient authors. 2 The form of
Politicus fr. i, Eudemus fr. 6, and On Good Birth frs. i, 2, 4
shows that these were dialogues. Themistius reference to
the Corinthian dialogue 3 is usually taken to refer to the
Nerinthus. The Historia Augusta says that Cicero s Horten-
sius was modelled on the Protrepticus* and as the Hortensius
was a dialogue 5 the Protrepticus was probably one too. There
is thus good evidence that several of the nineteen works that
stand at the head of Diogenes and Hesychius lists were
dialogues ; it may be inferred with high probability, though
not with certainty, that the others were so too.
but Stobaeus, pp. 59, 61 infra, and Athenaeus, p. 61 infra, confirm its
1 Diogenes has vnep dnoiKwv, Hesychius virep airoiKuZv, which is more
probable. But if, as is likely, virep is used in the sense of about , the sub
title probably does not go back to Aristotle, who rarely uses v-nip in this sense.
2 For On Poets, see p. 72 infra ; for On Philosophy, pp. 78, 82 infra ; for the
Eudemus, pp. 19-22 infra.
3 See p. 24 infra. 4 See p. 27 infra. 5 See pp. 41, 42, 46 infra.
It seems probable that Aristotle began with short dialogues
called (on the Platonic model) by one-word names (three of
which are actually identical with the names of Platonic
dialogues), that from these he proceeded to works which were
still dialogues but began to have something of the character
of treatises and are therefore designated as on so-and-so,
and later still went on to the large works containing more
than one book. Thus we get, tentatively, three groups :
1. Menexenus, Symposium, Sophistes, Nerinthus, Eroticus,
Gryllus, Eudemus, Protrepticus, Alexander.
2. On Wealth, On Prayer, On Good Birth, On Pleasure, On
Kingship, On Education.
3. Politicus, On Poets, On Philosophy, On Justice.
Before we make any further attempt to date the dialogues,
it is necessary to have in mind the various periods of Aris
totle s life. From his eighteenth year to his thirty-seventh
(367-348/7) he was a member of the school of Plato at
Athens. The next five years he spent partly at Assos, in
Mysia, and partly at Mitylene, in Lesbos. From 343/2 to
about 340 he was in Macedonia, tutoring Alexander the Great,
and for about five years thereafter he was pursuing his studies
in his native town, Stagira. From 335/4 till his death in 323
he was actively engaged as the head of his own school, the
Lyceum, in Athens.
We must make one alteration in our tentative grouping.
The work Alexander, or On Colonists, is, as Jaeger has pointed
out, suitable only to the time at which Alexander was en
gaged in setting up colonies in Asia, from (say) 331 B.C.
onwards, while the work On Kingship (also addressed to
Alexander) can most suitably be dated at or before Alexan
der s succession to the throne in 336. Thus the work Alexander
must be removed from the first group, and placed later than
On Kingship in the second group.
The Gryllus must be dated after the death of Gryllus at
the battle of Mantinea in 362/1, l but probably not very long
after it. It may therefore well be the earliest of all Aristotle s
works ; it is worth while to note that he had a model for it
1 See p. i infra.
in Plato s Gorgias. 1 The Eudemus must be dated after, but
probably not long after, the death of Eudemus in 354/3.
Thus these two works, at least, probably belong to the time
of Aristotle s membership of the Academy, while the work
On Kingship and the Alexander belong to the period 343-331.
The date of the Protrepticus has been examined by B.
Einarson and by P. Von der Miihll in the articles mentioned
in our bibliography. On the basis of connexions between the
dialogue and Isocrates Antidosis, Einarson has argued for
a date shortly after, and Von der Miihll for a date shortly
before, 353, and it is likely that one or other of these scholars
is right. The work On Philosophy, in which Aristotle
vigorously attacked Plato s theory of Ideas, must have been
written after Plato s death and Aristotle s withdrawal from
the Academy. With regard to the rest of the dialogues we
cannot be certain whether they were written during or after
Aristotle s membership of the Academy; but it is probable
that most of them were written during it ; for the remaining
twenty-five years of his life are none too long to serve for
the task of founding and directing the Peripatetic school,
and of composing the vast fabric of the complete works that
have survived to our day, and the very many lost works
other than dialogues that are named in the ancient lists of
There is an important point of form in which some of
Aristotle s dialogues differed from Plato s. Plato never ap
pears as a speaker in any of his dialogues. Cicero in one
passage 2 speaks of the Aristotelian plan, in which the parts
are so assigned to others that the writer himself has the
principal part . But in another passage 3 he describes his own
De Orator e as Aristotelian in method, though he is not in that
work the chief speaker. Aristotle s practice, therefore, must
have varied. The only dialogue in which it is certain that he
must have appeared as a speaker himself is the Politicus, in
which Cicero says expressly 4 that he did so. But there are
phrases in fragments from the Eudemus* and the work On
1 As he had for the Eudemus in the Phaedo, and for the Protrepticus in the
Euthydemus. 2 Alt. 13. 19. 4, p. 3 infra. 3 Fam. i. 9. 23, p. 3 infra.
4 Q- Fr- 3- 5- ! P- 68 infra. 5 fr. 2, p. 17 infra.
Philosophy 1 which suggest that there too Aristotle appeared
In his Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus and in his Berlin edition
of the fragments Rose included the work On Kingship and
the Alexander among the dialogues (for him, the pseudo-
Aristotelian dialogues), but in his Teubner edition he places
these works partly among the speeches and partly among the
letters ; in the latter case his ground seems to have been the
occurrence of the phrase TU>V arrcaraXKOTaiv ( the senders ) in
an extract from Strabo. 2 In this he was mistaken. Diogenes
expressly distinguishes these two works, which come in the
first section of his list of Aristotle s works, from the four
volumes of letters to Alexander, which come near the end of
the list ; and Hesychius places the two works near the be
ginning of his list, but the letters to Alexander among the
pseudographa at the end of his life. The phrase the senders
proves nothing ; a dialogue, no less than a letter, might have
been sent to Alexander. The pseudo-Ammonius distinguishes
the two works in question from the letters, 3 and describes
the work On Kingship as a single- volume book ; 4 and Cicero
also calls it a book. 5
Rose includes among the dialogues the work On the Good
and the Magicus. But there is ample evidence that the former
was not a dialogue, but Aristotle s record of Plato s famous
lectures on the Good. As for the Magicus, Suidas s.v.
Avrtcrdfrrjs says that some people assign it to Aristotle, but
he himself assigns it to Antisthenes; it occurs nowhere in
Diogenes list, and in Hesychius list only at the end, in a
list of works which he describes as spurious.
Of the works other than dialogues included in our selection,
the most important were those On the Good and On Ideas.
The former was Aristotle s record of the lectures in which
Plato unfolded the latest phase of his theory of Ideas, the
theory of Ideal numbers ; and every fragment of it that we
possess is of interest as helping to give us some understanding
of that mysterious theory. Again, the researches of Jaeger
and Wilpert have shown that the criticism of the ideal theory
1 frs. TO, n, pp. 82, 83 infra. 2 p. 67 infra.
3 p. 65 infra. * p. 65 infra. 5 p. 65 infra.
in Metaphysics A. 9 is in all probability based on an earlier
and much fuller criticism in the work On Ideas, which, with
the work On Philosophy, formed Aristotle s earliest expres
sion of his breakaway from the Platonic system. Wilpert has
been able to show that much more of On the Good and On
Ideas (and also of On the Pythagoreans] can be recovered from
the pages of the Greek commentators on Aristotle than had
previously been recognized.
The best existing commentary on the Eudemus, the Pro-
trepticus, and the work On Philosophy is to be found in
Jaeger s Aristoteles.
The ransacking of ancient literature to find fragments of
Aristotle has been carried further by E. Bignone in many
articles catalogued in our Bibliography, and in his massive
work L Aristotele Perduto e la Formazione Filosofica di
Epicuro. It is doubtful whether Greek or Latin literature has
much more to yield in this kind. More is to be expected from
the still unexplored field of Arabic literature on philosophy,
and here a beginning has been made by R. Walzer (see pp.
23, 26 infra] , who has also published a scholarly text of the
fragments of the Eudemus, the Protrepticus, and the work
In our numbering of the fragments, R 2 refers to Rose s
Berlin edition, R 3 to his Leipzig edition, W to Walzer s
edition. In the notes on readings, R refers to Rose s Leipzig
ARIST. Ph. i94 a 35-36: see p. 99 infra.
ARIST. De An. 404 b i8-2i: see p. 83 infra.
ARIST. Poet. I454 b i5-i8. All these rules one must keep in
mind throughout, and further, those also for such points of
stage-effect as directly depend on the art of the poet, since
in these, too, one may of ten make mistakes. Enough, however,
has been said on the subject in our published writings. 1
Cic. Inv. 2. 2. 6. Aristotle so greatly excelled in charm and
brevity of speech the inventors of rhetoric themselves, that
no one knows their precepts from their own books, but all
who wish to understand their precepts return to him as to
an expositor much more suited to their needs.
Cic.DeOr. 1. 11.49. For this reason, if the natural philosopher
Democritus was eloquent (as is commonly held and as I
myself think), while his matter was that of a natural philo
sopher his eloquence must be deemed to be that of an orator.
And if Plato has, as I admit, spoken like a god about matters
far removed from political controversy if Aristotle, Theo-
phrastus, and Carneades were, on the subjects they discussed,
eloquent, charming, and polished in their language then,
though the subjects they discuss belong to other studies,
their language itself belongs to this single art which we are
speaking about and inquiring into.
Ibid. 3. 21. 80. But if anyone ever comes forward who can,
in the Aristotelian manner, put forward both sides on every
subject, and can with knowledge of Aristotle s precepts
1 i.e. in the dialogue On Poets.
develop two contrary speeches on every question, or who can
in the manner of Arcesilaus and Carneades argue against any
proposition that is put forward, and who adds to that method
this practice and training in speaking, let us agree that he
is the true, the perfect, the only orator.
Cic. Brut. 31. 1 20-1. For this reason I approve all the more
of your judgement, Brutus, in following the Academic school,
in whose doctrine and precepts methodical discussion is
united with charm and fluency of speech ; although that very
practice of the Peripatetics and Academics in the matter of
speaking is such that, while there cannot be a perfect orator
without it, it does not by itself make a perfect orator. For as
the language of the Stoics is too terse and a little too much
compressed to appeal to the ears of the public, so the lan
guage of those others is too free and expansive for the prac
tice of the courts and the forum. Who is richer in style than
Plato? The philosophers say Jove speaks so, if he speaks
Greek. Who is more sinewy than Aristotle, more charming
than Theophrastus ?
Cic. Top. i. 3. The obscurity of Aristotle s Topics has re
pelled you ; and the great rhetorician replied, I fancy, that
he did not know the works of Aristotle. I have, indeed, been
very little surprised that a rhetorician did not know a philo
sopher who is unknown to philosophers themselves, all but
a very few; for which they are the less to be pardoned
because they ought to have been attracted not only by the
things he has said and discovered, but also by the incredible
fluency and charm of his style.
Cic. Fin. 5. 5. 12. Since there are two kinds of books, one
written in popular style, and called by them exoteric, and
another more precise kind which they left in the form of
treatises, Aristotle and Theophrastus seem not to be always
consistent with themselves on the subject of the supreme
Cic. Lucullus 38. 119 (Plasberg) : see p. 92 infra.
Cic. Fant. I. g. 23. 1 have written, therefore, in the Aristotelian
manner (at least that was what I wanted to do), three books
in my discussion or dialogue On the Orator.
Cic. Alt. 4. 16. 2. You know the style of my dialogues. ... I
have put into the mouths of Africanus, Philus, Laelius, and
Manilius the discussion On the State which I have started;
I have added some young men. . . . And so I planned, in
having a preface in each book, as Aristotle does in the books
which he calls exoteric, to do something that would justify
me in appealing to him which I believe will please you;
heaven grant that I may complete my effort !
Ibid. 13. 19. 3-4. If I had represented Cotta and Varro as
disputing with one another, as your last letter advises me to
do, my role would have been a silent one. This has a good
effect when characters from antiquity are introduced ; Hera-
elides has used the device in many works, and we have done
so in our six books On the State. There are also three books of
ours On the Orator which I think very 7 highly of ; in those, too,
the persons are such that it was right for me to be silent. . . .
I am supposed to be a boy when that dialogue starts, so that
I could have no part of my own. But what I have now written
follows the Aristotelian plan, in which the parts are so
assigned to others that the writer himself has the principal
part. I have completed in this manner five books On Ends.
Cic. Q. Fr. 3. 5. i : see p. 68 infra.
QUINT. 10. i. 83. What shall I say of Aristotle? I doubt
whether I admire him more for his knowledge, for the
copiousness of his writings, for the charm of his language,
for his keenness of invention, or for the wide range of his
Dio CHR. Or. 53. i. Indeed Aristotle himself, from whom they
say criticism and grammar took their origin, discusses the
poet in several dialogues, for the most part admiring and
PLU. Mor. 447 f-448 a. Why is it that in philosophical in
quiries the process of being led by others and often changing
one s ground is not always painful, and that Aristotle him
self, Democritus, and Chrysippus gave up without fuss or
ill-feeling, and indeed with pleasure, some of their former
opinions? It is because no passion opposes the part of the
soul that contemplates and learns ; in such cases the irrational
part remains calm and does not concern itself, so that reason
willingly turns towards the truth when it appears, and
abandons what is untrue.
Ibid. 1115 b-c. With regard to the Ideas, about which Aris
totle chides Plato, misrepresenting them completely and
bringing every possible objection against them, in his ethical
works, in his metaphysical works, in his physical works, in
his popular dialogues, he seemed to some to be polemical
rather than philosophical in his attitude towards this doc
trine, as though his object was to belittle the Platonic philo
sophy ; so far was he from following it.
DIOG. Oen. fr. 4, col. i. y-col. 2. 8. WTien they say that things
cannot be apprehended, what else are they saying than that
we ought not to study nature ; who will choose to look for
what he can never find ? Aristotle and the members of his
school say nothing can be known, since owing to the mere
speed of their fluxion things escape our apprehension.
Eus. P.E. 14. 6. 9-10. Cephisodorus, when he saw his master
Isocrates being attacked by Aristotle, was ignorant of and
unversed in Aristotle himself, but, seeing the repute which
Plato s views enjoyed, he thought that Aristotle was follow
ing Plato; so he waged war on Aristotle but was really
attacking Plato. His criticism began with the Ideas and
finished with the other doctrines things which he himself
did not know; he was only guessing at the meaning of the
opinions held about them. This Cephisodorus was not fight
ing the person he was attacking, but was fighting the person
he did not wish to attack. 1
1 i.e. not Aristotle but Plato.
THEM. Or. 319 c. And so Aristotle s popular works, which arc
meant for the multitude, are full of light and translucent ;
their usefulness is not unmixed with enjoyment and pleasure ;
Aphrodite and the Graces blossom on them.
BASIL, Ep. 135. Even of secular philosophers those who wrote
dialogues, Aristotle and Theophrastus, at once got to grips
with the facts, because they were conscious of their lack of
the Platonic graces.
AMM. in Cat. 6. 25-27. 4. We say that the Philosopher has
evidently expressed his views in different ways. In the
acroamatic works he is, as regards the thought, terse, com
pressed, and full of questions, and as regards the language
quite ordinary, owing to his search for precise truth and
clearness ; he sometimes even invents words if necessary. In
the dialogues, which he has written for the many, he aims
at a certain fullness, a careful choice of diction and metaphor,
and modifies the style of his diction to suit the speakers, and
in short does everything that can beautify his style.
SIMP, in Cat. 4. 14. Of the general works, some are hypo-
mnematic, viz. those which the philosopher put together to
aid his own memory and with a view to submitting them to
further testing. . . . 19-20. Alexander 1 says these works have
been hastily put together and do not aim at one end; for
which reason, and to distinguish them from these, he says
the others are called systematic. Of these some are in dialogue
form, while in others Aristotle speaks in his own person.
SIMP, in De Caelo 288. 31-289. 2. By popular philosophical
discussions Aristotle means those originally intended for the
many, which we are wont also to call exoteric, as we call
the more serious books acroamatic and systematic ; Aristotle
speaks of this in the books On Philosophy.
ELI AS in Cat. 114. 15. In some of his systematic works Aris
totle speaks in his own person (and these are also called
1 i.e. of Aphrodisias.
acroamatic), while others are in dialogue form, and are also
called exoteric. The former class, as being works in which he
speaks in his own person, are opposed to the dialogues, and
as being acroamatic they are opposed to the exoteric works.
For, wishing to benefit all men, Aristotle wrote both in his
own person, for philosophical students ... 22 and in dialogue
form, for those who were not. In the acroamatic works, since
he was addressing people who were prepared to think philo
sophically, he used conclusive arguments, while in the
dialogues he used probable arguments 115. 3-5. Alexander
mentions another difference between the acroamatic works
and the dialogues, that in the former Aristotle says what he
thinks and what is true, while in the latter he expresses the
false opinions of others.
Ibid. 124. 3-6. In those of the general works which are
dialogues, i.e. the exoteric works, he is clear, because he is
arguing for non-philosophers, but because he is arguing
among dialecticians he is versatile in his impersonations, full
of Aphrodite and overflowing with the Graces.
GRYLLUS, or ON RHETORIC
1 (R 2 57, R 3 68)
DIOG. LAERT. 2. 6. 55. Aristotle says that a host of people
wrote encomia and funeral speeches on Gryllus, partly in the
wish to please his father. 1
2 (R 2 58, R 3 69)
QUINT, hist. 2. 17. i. Let us pass, then, to the question that
follows, whether rhetoric is an art. This . . . was not doubted
by any of those who have handed down rules for oratory. . . .
With these most of the Stoic and the Peripatetic philosophers
agree. ... 4. I, for my part, think that those who argued
against this were not so much saying what they really
thought as wishing to exercise their wits by dealing with a
difficult subject. ... 5. Some want rhetoric to be a natural
gift. ... 7. They maintain that nothing which proceeds from
art can have existed before the art did . . . n. that that
which a man does without learning to do it has nothing to
do with art, but that even men who have not learned to
speak do speak. ... 14. Aristotle, according to his wont, from
sheer love of inquiry worked out in the Gryllus some argu
ments which show his usual subtlety. But he also wrote three
books on the art of rhetoric, and in the first of them admits
that rhetoric is not merely an art; he assigned to it an
element of political science, as well as one of dialectic.
3 (R 2 133, R 3 139)
Ibid. 3. i. 13. The most famous of Gorgias disciples was
Isocrates although the authorities are not agreed on the
question who Isocrates teacher was ; but we believe Aristotle.
1 i.e. Xenophon.
PLU. Mor. 612 d-e. To forget entirely what has been said
and done in wine seems not only to conflict with the reputed
tendency of the table to promote friendliness, but also to
have the witness of the most famous philosophers against
it Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, and Speusippus, Epicurus,
Prytanis, Hieronymus, and Dion the Academic, who have
thought it worth some trouble to record sayings made at the
MACROB. Sat. 7. 3. 23. I advise you at your feasts . . .
either to propound or yourselves to resolve questions suit
able to the occasion. This kind of thing the ancients
were so far from thinking ridiculous that both Aristotle
and Plutarch and your Apuleius wrote on such ques
I 1 (R 2 175, R 3 IOO)
ATH. 178 e-f. Homer, exact in all things, did not omit even
this small thing, that we ought to tend and wash our poor
bodies before going to a meal. At least he says of Odysseus
that before the feast at the Phaeacian court The house
keeper straightway bade him bathe . 2 And of Telemachus
companions he says, They went to the polished baths and
bathed . 3 For it was unbecoming, as Aristotle says, to go to
the drinking-party covered with sweat and dust ; a man of
taste, as Heraclitus says, should not be slovenly or unwashed
or delight in mire.
1 R s s fr. 99 is omitted because, even if Nauck s emendation ^piaroreAouj
is right, there is no reason for supposing the passage to refer to Aristotle s
2 Od. 8. 449
3 Od. 4. 48.
2 (R 2 I08, R 3 IOI)
ATH. 674 6-675 a. Sappho bids those who do sacrifice to be
crowned with chaplets, as being something gayer and more
pleasing to the gods. And Aristotle in his Symposium says that
we offer nothing mutilated to the gods, but things perfect and
whole ; now that which is complete is perfect, and garlanding
oneself signifies a sort of completion. Homer says The
young men crowned the bowls with wine , 1 and The god
crowns his beauty with words ; 2 those who are unshapely
in aspect, he means, are made good by the charm of speech.
This, then, is what the garland seems to mean. Accordingly
on occasions of grief we arrange things in the opposite way ;
in fellow-feeling for the departed we disfigure ourselves by
cutting our hair and giving up our garlands.
Cf. Schol. in Theocr. 3. 21.
3 (R 2 98, R 3 I02)
ATH. 40 c-d. Seleucus says it was the ancient custom not
to take wine, beyond the ordinary, or to enjoy any other
luxury, except in honour of the gods. It was for this reason
that they used the words festivity , feast , and drunken
ness ; the first because they thought it was in honour of the
gods that we ought to drink wine, the second because it was
in honour of the gods that they assembled and came together
(this is what Homer s rich feast 3 means), while drunken
ness, Aristotle says, is so called because it is the taking of
wine after sacrifices to the gods. 4
PHILO, De Plant. 34. 141. What the lawgiver said about
drunkenness we shall later see precisely ; let us now examine 5
what others thought. The question was much debated by
many of the philosophers, and is propounded thus: Will the
wise man get drunk ? Getting drunk has two meanings ;
1 II. i. 470. a Od. 8. 170. J Od. 3. 420, etc.
4 The common element is the theta in dtos, Ooivj, QaXia, 6v.v,
5 Reading in R. 99. 13 <ftpevvrjowntv, with Cohn and Wendland.
in one it is equivalent to being in wine ; in the other to being
silly when in wine. Of those who attacked the problem, some
said the wise man would neither drink too much strong
drink nor become maudlin. ... 35. 144. The others declared
that being in wine was becoming even to a good man, while
being maudlin was not. . . . 38. 154. Unmixed drink the
ancients called not only wine but also liquor ; at all events
the name is often used in poetry, so that if synonyms ( wine
and liquor ) are names for a single thing, words derived
from them ( being in wine and being in liquor ) will differ
only in sound 1 . . . . 155. If the good man is to be in wine, he
will also get drunk. . . . 156. We have mentioned one argu
ment to show that the wise man will get drunk ; the second
is as follows. ... 39. 160. My purpose has been to show that
people do not now take strong drink in the way the ancients
did. . . . 161. Our fathers began every good work with sacred
rites, thinking that so the result would be most propitious,
because they had begun with prayer and sacrifice ; and even
if the need for action was urgent, still they waited, thinking
that more haste is sometimes less speed. Speed without fore
sight was, they thought, harmful, while leisureliness with
good hope for the future was advantageous. Knowing, then,
that even 2 the enjoyment and use of wine needs much care,
they did not take strong drink to their fill 3 nor at all times,
but in fitting manner and in due season. They first prayed
and offered sacrifices and propitiated the divine power, and
purified their bodies and souls, the former with baths and
the latter with the streams of laws and right education,
and then turned, cheerful and rejoicing, to a relaxed way of
life ; they often did not return to their homes but continued 4
in the temples in which they had sacrificed, so that, remem
bering the sacrifices and respecting the place, they might
feast in the manner most befitting to a sacred place, erring
neither in word nor in action. It is from this, indeed, that
1 Reading in R. 99. 23-24 e /i^epo/itvov, aiar tl TOL avvatw^ovvra KaQ tvos
v7TOK(ifj.evov Ae yerai, oivos xai fi.f6v, Kai TO. OLTTO TOVTWV ovotv OTI firj 4>a>i ais
oioiad novov, TO re olvovoOai Kal TO pfOveiv [ev], with Cohn and Wendland.
2 Reading in R. 100. 8 on *cal 17, with Cohn and Wendland.
J Reading in R. 100. 9 aoyv, with Cohn and Wendland.
4 Reading in R. 100. 16 SiareAoCvrey, with Cohn and Wendland.
they say getting drunk gets its name, because it was the
custom of our forefathers to take wine after sacrifice. 1 To
whom, then, could the manner we have described of using
strong drink be more fitting than to wise men, to whom 2 the
sacrifice that precedes the drinking is also fitting ? For one
might almost say that no bad man really performs the sacred
rites, even if without cessation he brings ten thousand oxen
to the altar every day. For the most necessary sacrifice, his
mind, is blemished, and it is not lawful for blemished persons
to touch the altar. This is the second argument. ... 40. 165-6.
The third depends 3 on a different guess at the etymology.
Some people think that drunkenness is so called not only
because it is achieved after sacrifice, but also because it
causes relaxation of soul. 4 Now when the reasoning of the
foolish is relaxed, that leads to the strengthening of many
errors, but when that of the wise is relaxed, it leads to the
enjoyment of relaxation, contentment, and cheerfulness. For
a wise man who has taken wine becomes sweeter-tempered
than he was when sober, so that in this respect too 5 we should
make no mistake in saying that he will get drunk.
Cf. PLU. Mor. 503 6-504 b.
4 (R 2 99, R 3 103)
APOLLON. Mirab. 25 (Keller). Aristotle in his book on
drunkenness says that Andron of Argos, though he ate many
salty and dry foods, remained all through his life without
thirst and without drink. Besides, he twice travelled to
Ammon through the desert, eating dry barley-groats but
taking no liquid.
Cf. ATH. 44 d, DIOG. LAERT. 9. n. 81, SEXT. EMP. Pyrr.
1 fidh tn- = fitrd-\-0vfiv !
1 Omitting vvv in R. 100. 22, with Cohn and Wendland.
J Reading in R. 100. 28-101. 2 rpiros . . . ijprTj/^Vos, with Cohn and Wend
Reading in R. 101. 8 oi55 f av Tavry, with Cohn and Wendland.
5 (R 2 IOO, R 3 104)
ATH. 641 d-e. Aristotle in his book on drunkenness calls 1
these, as we do, second tables, in these words: We must
consider that a sweetmeat differs entirely from food, as much
as 2 an eatable differs from a "sucket" (the old Greek name
for a sweetmeat when it is served as dessert) ; 3 so that the
first person to speak of "second tables" seems to have been
justified ; for the eating of sweets is a sort of extra dinner,
and a sweet course forms a second meal.
Ibid. 641 b. Aristotle in his book on drunkenness says that
sweetmeats were called by our ancestors suckets ; they were
a kind of extra dinner.
Cf. Schol. in Aristoph. Pacem I. 772.
6 (R 2 2l8, R 3 I05)
Ps.-JuL. Ep. 391 b-c. The fig is not only pleasant to the
taste, but also better for the digestion. It is so useful to man
kind that Aristotle even calls it an antidote to every poison,
and says it is just for that reason that at meals 4 it is served
both as an hors-d oeuvre 5 and as dessert, as though it were
being wrapped round the iniquities of the food in preference
to any other sacred antidote. And indeed that the fig is
dedicated to the gods, is placed on the altar in every sacrifice,
and is a better incense than any frankincense, this is not my
account only; anyone who has learned its use knows that
this is the account any wise man skilled in sacred rites would
7 (R 2 ioi, R 3 io6)
ATH. 447 a-b. As Aristotle says in his book on drunkenness,
those who have drunk the barley liquor called beer fall on
1 Reading in R. 102. 9 npoaayopevfi, with Kaibel.
1 Reading in R. 102. 11 oaov, with the MSS.
3 Omitting TO. ^pia^ara in R. 102. 12 with Kaibel.
4 Reading in R. 102. 26 KO.V rofs Sdnvois, with Hercher.
5 Reading in R. 102. 27 irpo-nap<ni9(a9ai, with Hercher.
their backs ; he says : The liquor made from barley called
beer has a certain peculiarity ; people who are intoxicated
by other liquors fall in all sorts of directions to the left,
to the right, on their faces, on their backs; only those who
are intoxicated with beer always fall backwards and lie on
Cf. ATH. 34 b.
8 (R 2 102, R 3 107)
ATH. 429 c-d. Aristotle in his book on drunkenness says: If
the wine is boiled down to a moderate extent it is less
intoxicating ; the force of the liquor, he says, is weakened
by the boiling down. The old , he adds, are intoxicated
most quickly, owing to the scarcity and weakness of the
natural heat in them. But also those who are very young are
intoxicated fairly quickly because of the abundance of the
inherent heat ; they are easily overcome by the added heat
from the wine. Of dumb animals, too, pigs get intoxicated
if they are fed with masses of pressed grapes; ravens and
dogs if they eat the wine-plant ; monkeys and elephants if
they drink wine. This is why they capture monkeys and
ravens by intoxicating the former with wine or the latter
9 (R 2 103, R 3 108)
PLU. Mor. 650 a. Florus was surprised at the fact that
Aristotle, who has written in his book on drunkenness that
old men are overtaken most easily, and women least easily,
by drunkenness, did not work out the reason, a thing he
was not wont to fail to do.
10 (R 2 104, R 3 109)
ATH. 429 f. The cup called Samagoreion made from three
pints mixed will, according to Aristotle, intoxicate more than
i 4 FRAGMENTS
II (R 2 105-6, R 3 IIO-Il)
ATH. 464 c-d. Aristotle in his book on drunkenness says:
The so-called Rhodian cups are introduced at drinking
parties both because of the pleasure they give and because
when they are heated they make the wine less intoxicating ;
they are made by boiling water in which myrrh and rushes
and the like have been thrown, and when they are poured
into the wine the drinkers get less intoxicated. Elsewhere
he says: The Rhodian cups are made of myrrh, rushes, dill, 1
saffron, balsam, cardamom, and cinnamon boiled together;
the cup made from these 2 , when poured into the wine, checks
intoxication, so that it even restrains people from sexual
intercourse, by cooling down their spirits.
Cf. ibid. 496 f.
PLU. Mor. 651 f-652 a. I want to learn whence came our
notion that wine is cold. You think , said I, that that is
our view? Whose is it, then ? he said. Well, I remember/
said I, happening not lately but quite a while ago on a
discussion of this problem by Aristotle.
1 Reading in R. 104. 19 a\oivov, dvrjOov, with Wilamowitz.
2 Omitting KCU in R. 104. 20, with the MSS.
1 (R2 54 , R 3 6 5 )
DIOG. LAERT. 8. 2. 57 (3). Aristotle says in the Sophistes that
Empedocles first discovered rhetoric, and Zeno dialectic.
Cf. ibid. 9. 5. 25 (4), and SEXT. EMP. Dogtn. i. 6-7.
2 (R 2 55, R 3 66)
DIOG. LAERT. 8. 2. 63 (9). Aristotle, too, says that Empedocles
was free-minded and averse to all rule, since he declined the
kingship which was offered him (as Xanthus says in his
account of him) no doubt because he preferred the simple
3 (R 2 56, R 3 67)
DIOG. LAERT. 9. 8. 54 (5). The first of his books that Prota
goras read in public was that about the gods. ... He read it
at Athens, in the house of Euripides, or, as some say, in that
of Heraclides, while others say it was in the Lyceum ; his
pupil Archagoras the son of Theodotus read it for him. He
was accused by Pythodorus son of Polyzelus, one of the Four
Hundred ; though Aristotle says his accuser was Euathlus.
EUDEMUS, or ON SOUL
1 (R 2 32, R 3 37, W l)
Cic. Div. ad Brut. I. 25. 53. What? Is the great, the almost
divine, intellect of Aristotle in error, or does he wish others
to fall into error, when he writes that his friend Eudemus
of Cyprus while on a journey to Macedonia came to Pherae,
a Thessalian town of considerable note at the time, but held
in cruel subjection by the tyrant Alexander. In that town
Eudemus fell so ill that all the doctors feared for his life.
He dreamed that a handsome young man told him that he
would soon recover, that in a few days the tyrant Alexander
would die, and that in the fifth year thereafter Eudemus
himself would return home. Aristotle writes that the first
two predictions were fulfilled forthwith ; Eudemus recovered
and the tyrant was killed by his wife s brothers. But towards
the end of the fifth year, when the dream had led him to
hope that he would return from Sicily to Cyprus, he died in
battle at Syracuse. And so the dream had been interpreted
as meaning that when Eudemus soul had left his body, it
had returned to its home.
PLU. Dion 22. 3. With Dion acted many of the politicians,
and of the philosophers Eudemus the Cyprian, to whom
after his death Aristotle dedicated his dialogue On Soul, and
Timonides the Leucadian.
2 (R 2 33> R 3 38, W2)
THEM, in De An, 106. 29-107. 5. Of the arguments that Plato
used about the immortality of the soul, pretty much the
greater number and the most weighty find their basis in the
reason. This is true both of the argument from self-move
ment (for it was shown that only the reason is self-moved, if
we take movement to mean activity), of that which assumes
learning to be recollection, and of that which speaks of the
EUDEMUS, or ON SOUL 17
soul s likeness to God. Of the other arguments those thought
the more convincing could be without difficulty referred to
the reason, and also the more convincing of those worked
out by Aristotle himself in the Eudemus. From these facts
it is clear that Plato, also, takes reason alone to be immortal.
3 (R 2 33, R 3 39> w 3)
ELI AS in Cat. 114. 25. Aristotle establishes the immortality
of the soul in his acroamatic works 1 as well, and there he
establishes it by conclusive arguments, but in the dialogues
he naturally uses probable arguments. ... 32. In his dialogues
he says that the soul must be immortal because we all
instinctively make libations to the departed and swear by
the departed, but no one can make a libation to that which
is completely non-existent, or swear by it. . . . 115. 11-12.
It is chiefly in his dialogues that Aristotle seems to announce
the immortality of the soul.
4(R 2 34 , R 3 4 o, W 4 )
PROCL. in Tim. 338 c. Plato joined the soul to the body
immediately, cutting out all the problems about the descent
of the soul. . . . d. Nor will he tell us here what happens after
the departure of the soul . . . because (as I will maintain) he
confines himself to what is fitting to the purpose of the
dialogue, and admits here just so much of the theory of the
soul as is physical, describing the soul s companionship with
the body. Aristotle in emulation of him treats physically of
the soul in the De Anima, saying nothing either about its
descent or about its fortunes ; but in his dialogues he dealt
separately with those matters and offered 2 the preceding
5 (R 2 35, R 3 4 i, ws)
PROCL. in Remp. 2. 349. 13-26 (Kroll). The divine Aristotle,
also, states the reason why the soul on coming hither from
1 i.e. scientific works representing Aristotle s teaching to the members of
* Reading in R. 47. i *aT/3aATo, with Diehl.
yonder forgets the sights it saw there, but on going from here
remembers yonder its experiences here. We must accept 1 the
argument ; for he himself says that on their journey from
health to disease some people forget even the letters they
had learned, but that no one ever has this experience when
passing from disease to health; and that life without the
body, being natural to souls, is like health, and life in the
body, as being unnatural, is like disease. For there they live
according to nature, but here contrary to nature ; so that it
naturally results 2 that souls that pass from yonder forget
the things there, while souls that pass yonder from this world
continue to remember the things in it.
6 (R 2 40, R 3 44, w 6)
PLU. Mor. 115 b-e. Many wise men, as Grantor says, not only
recently but long ago have bewailed the human lot, thinking
life a punishment, and merely to be born a man the greatest
of misfortunes. Aristotle says that even Silenus revealed this
to Midas when caught by him. But it is better to record the
philosopher s very words. He says this in the work called
Eudemus or On the Soul: Wherefore, best and most blessed
of all men, not only 3 do we think the dead happy and blessed,
and think it impious 4 to say anything untrue about them
and to slander them, since they have already become better
and greater this custom is so ancient and long established
among us that absolutely no one knows either the time of
its origin or who first established it ; it seems to have been
followed continuously for endless ages not only that, but
you see the saying that has been current in the mouths
of men for many years. 5 What is that? said the other.
And he said in answer: Why, that not to be born is best
of all, and death better than life ; to many a man has the
heavenly voice so testified. This, they say, is what happened
1 Reading in R. 47. 7 diroSe/creoi , with Kroll.
2 Reading in R. 47. 12-13 vyifia, rr/v 8e ev aa>fj.aaiv, ios napa (f>vaiv, vooai.
r}v yap eVei fj.fv Kara iftvaiv avrds, tvravBa 8e irapa <f>votv <I>ar eiKorws av/x-
fiaivfiv, with Kroll.
3 Omitting in R. 48. n *cai before irpos, with one MS.
4 Omitting jyovfjifda in R. 48. 14, with Bernays.
5 Reading in R. 48. 20 (for woAai) TTO^WV (rwv, with Paton.
EUDEMUS, or ON SOUL 19
to the famous Midas when he had caught Silenus and asked
him what is the best thing for men and the thing most
desirable of all ; Silenus at first would not say anything but
maintained unbroken silence ; but when at last by using
every device Midas had with difficulty induced him to say
something, he said under compulsion: 1 "Shortlived seed of
a toilsome spirit and of a hard fate, why do you force me to
say what it is better for you not to know ? The most painless
life is that lived in ignorance of one s own ills. To men it is
quite impossible for the best thing of all to happen, nor can
they share in the nature of the best (for it is best for all men
and women not to be born), but the next best, and the best
achievable for men, 2 is, having been born, to die as soon as
may be." It is clear that 3 by this he meant that the time
spent in death is better than that spent in life.
7 (R 2 4i, R 3 45, wy)
PHILOP. in De An. 141. 22. Aristotle, having blamed alike
all those who had spoken of the soul, for having said nothing
about the body which was to receive it. ... 30 naturally goes
on to link with this his opinion about the soul. Some thinkers
looked to the same fact, that it is not a body of any chance
constitution 4 that shares in soul, but it needs a definite con
stitution, 5 just as attunement is not produced by any chance
state of the strings but needs 6 a definite degree of tension of
them ; they thought, therefore, that the soul too is an attune
ment of the body, and that the different kinds of soul answer
to the 7 different attunements of the body. This opinion
Aristotle states and refutes. At first he merely records the
opinion itself, but presently he sets forth the arguments that
led them to it. He had already opposed this opinion else
where, in the dialogue Eudemus, and before him Plato in the
Phaedo had used some five arguments against this view. . . .
Reading in R. 49. 2 avayKa.6nfvov, with Paton.
Reading in R. 49. 8 dvdpu>iroi$, with Wilamowitz.
Reading in R. 49. 9-10 brjXov ovv on toy, with Reiske.
Reading in R. 49. 17 <Ls ervxev tx ov > w i tn Hayduck.
Reading in R. 49. 17-18 8drai rotrjo&t xpaaccus, with Hayduck.
Reading in R. 49. 19 Sctrat, with Hayduck.
Reading in R. 49. 20 rd? 8ia<f>6povs, with Hayduck.
144. 21. These are Plato s five objections. Aristotle himself,
as I have already said, has used in the dialogue Eudemus the
two following objections. One goes thus: Attunement , he
says, has a contrary, lack of attunement, but the soul has
no contrary. Therefore the soul is not an attunement. One
might reply to this that there is strictly no contrary to
attunement, 1 but rather 2 an indefinite privation, and the
soul, as being a form, has an indefinite opposite, and as we
say in the case of music that a certain kind of lack of attune
ment changes into attunement, 3 so a certain kind of privation
changes into soul. Aristotle s second objection 4 is this: The
contrary of the attunement of the body is the lack of attune
ment of the body, and the lack of attunement of the living
body is disease, weakness, and ugliness; of which, disease is
lack of attunement of the elements, weakness lack of attune
ment of the tissues, ugliness lack of attunement of the
organs. If, then, lack of attunement is disease, weakness, and
ugliness, attunement is health, strength, and beauty; but
soul is none of these, neither health nor strength nor beauty ;
for even Thersites, the ugliest of men, had a soul. Therefore
the soul is not an attunement. This is what Aristotle says
in the Eudemus. But here 5 he has used four objections to
refute this opinion, of which the third is the second of those
in the Eudemus. . . . 145. 21. Aristotle says in public dis
cussions . He must mean either his unwritten discussions
with his associates or the exoteric writings (among which are
the dialogues, e.g. the Eudemus}, which are called exoteric
because they were not written for his genuine disciples, but
for the general advantage of the many. . . . 147. 6-10. It is
more appropriate to call health (or generally the good state
of the body) an attunement than to assert this of the soul.
This is the third objection (the second in the Eudemus}.
That health is an attunement he has shown in the Eudemus
from its being the contrary of disease ; we have stated above
the course of the syllogism.
1 Omitting in R. 50. 8 evavrtov after Kvpiius, with Hayduck.
2 Reading in R. 50. 9 oAAa /idAAov areprjai?, with Hayduck.
- Reading in R. 50. II roiavSe dvapfioariav /lera/SaiVeiv tls TTJV apjj.oviav, with
Hayduck. 4 Reading in R. 50. 12 Scurepov, with Hayduck.
5 i.e. in the De Anima.
EUDEMUS, or ON SOUL 21
SIMP, in De An. 53. 1-4. By the arguments used in public
discussion Aristotle means those of the arguments used
which are adapted to the intelligence of most people, hinting
perhaps at those in the Phaedo, but meaning also those used
by himself in the dialogue Eudemus to refute the attunement
THEM, in De An. 24. 13. Another opinion about the soul has
been handed down, which is as plausible as any, and has
rendered account of itself and been examined both in public
and in private discussions. Some people say soul is an attune
ment ; for attunement is a mixture and combination of con
traries, and the body is composed of contraries, so that that
which brings these into concord and harmonizes them hot
and cold, moist and dry, hard and soft, and all the other
contrarieties of the elements is nothing other than soul, just
as the attunement of notes blends low notes with high. The
argument is plausible, but has been refuted in many places
both by Aristotle and by Plato. The soul, they say, is prior
to body, but harmony is posterior ; the soul rules and over
sees the body and often fights it, but harmony does not fight
with the things that have been harmonized ; harmony admits
of more and less, soul does not ; harmony, so long as it is
preserved, does not admit disharmony, but soul admits
wickedness ; if the disharmony of the body is disease, ugli
ness, or weakness, the harmony of the body must be beauty,
health, and strength, not soul all these things have been
said by the philosophers elsewhere ; but what Aristotle says
now is this. ... 25. 23-25. That those who say the soul is
a harmony would seem to be neither very near to nor very
far from the truth is clear, then, both from what Aristotle
has said now and from what he has said elsewhere.
OLYMP. in Phd. 173. 20 (Norvin). Aristotle in the Eudemus
objects as follows: Disharmony is contrary to harmony, but
soul has no contrary, since it is a substance ; the conclusion
is obvious. Again, if the disharmony of the elements of an
animal is disease, their harmony must be health, not soul. . . .
30. The third argument is the same as the second in the
SOPHON. in De An. 25. 4-8. There has been handed down yet
another opinion about the soul, which many people find
plausible, as much so as any of those that are recorded. It has,
however, already been brought to account and refuted by
appropriate arguments which have been published both by
our arguments addressed to Eudemus and by those in
Plato s Phaedo ; but none the less they will be criticized now
as well. Some say the soul is a harmony.
8 (R 2 42, R 3 46, w 8)
SIMP, in De An. 221. 20-33. Plato is in every case accustomed
to call by the same name the Forms and the things that are
formed according to them. But Aristotle, when the thing
formed is divisible, avoids using the same name, because of
the great difference between the divisible thing and the
indivisible form. The reasoning soul he describes not only
as limited but also as a limit ; for as it is between the in
divisible and the divisible, being in a sense both, so too it is
between the limit and the limited, exhibiting both characters
the latter as moving discursively, the former because it
always moves in obedience to limits and because all that has
been unfolded is gathered into one ; in this respect it is
likened to the limiting reason. And because of this he says
in his dialogue on the soul called Eudemus that the soul is
a form, and praises those who describe the soul as receptive
of forms not the whole soul but the rational soul, as
knowing the forms that have the second degree of truth : for
it is to reason, which is greater than soul, that the really true
9 (R 2 3 8, R 3 43)
PLU. Mor. 733 c. Aristotle has recorded that in CiliciaTimon s
grandmother hibernated two months in each year, giving no
sign of life except by breathing.
PLU. Mor. 382 d-e. The knowledge of that which is knowable,
pure, and simple, flashing like lightning through the soul,
EUDEMUS, or ON SOUL 23
grants it at times to touch and see. This is why Plato and
Aristotle call this part of philosophy a mystic vision, inas
much as those who forsake these confused and various objects
of opinion leap in thought to that primary, simple, and
immaterial object, and, gaining true contact with the pure
truth about it, think that, as though by initiation into the
mysteries, they have attained the end of philosophy.
AL-KiNDi, cod. Taimuriyye Falsafa 55. Aristotle tells of the
Greek king whose soul was caught up in ecstasy, and who
for many days remained neither alive nor dead. When he
came to himself, he told the bystanders of various things in
the invisible world, and related what he had seen souls,
forms, and angels; he gave the proofs of this by foretelling
to all his acquaintances how long each of them would live.
All he had said was put to the proof, and no one exceeded
the span of life that he had assigned. He prophesied, too, that
after a year a chasm would open in the country of Elis, and
after two years a flood would occur in another place ; and
everything happened as he had said. Aristotle asserts that
the reason of this was that his soul had acquired this know
ledge just because it had been near to leaving his body and
had been in a certain way separated from it, and so had seen
what it had seen. How much greater marvels of the upper
world of the kingdom would it have seen, then, if it had
really left his body!
AL-KINDI, cod. Aya Sofia 4832, fol. 34. Aristotle asserts of
the soul that it is a simple substance whose actions are
manifested in bodies.
SERV. in Aen. 6. 448. Caeneus, now a woman. Caenis was
a girl who won from Neptune as the price of her shame a
change of sex. . . . Virgil refers to the Platonic or Aristotelian
view that souls often by metempsychosis change their sex.
I (R* 53, R3 64)
THEM. Or. 295 c-d. This man, after some slight association
with my studies or amusements whichever you call them
had almost the same experience as the philosopher Axiothea,
Zeno of Citium, and the Corinthian farmer. Axiothea, after
reading a book of Plato s Republic, migrated from Arcadia
to Athens and attended Plato s lectures for a long time with
out being discovered to be a woman like Lycomedes
Achilles. The Corinthian farmer after coming into contact
with Gorgias not Gorgias himself but the dialogue Plato
wrote in criticism of the sophist forthwith gave up his farm
and his vines, put his soul under Plato s guidance, and made
it a seed-bed and a planting ground for Plato s philosophy.
This is the man whom Aristotle honours in his Corinthian
dialogue. The facts about Zeno are well known and are
recounted by many writers that the Apology of Socrates
brought him from Phoenicia to the painted Stoa.
1 The work Nerinthus, which occurs in the lists of Aristotelian works
preserved by Diogenes Laertius and Hesychius, is not mentioned under that
name by any other ancient writer, nor does the name Nerinthus occur else
where. The identification of the work with the Corinthian dialogue named
by Themistius, and of Nerinthus with the Corinthian farmer , is purely
conjectural, but not unlikely to be right.
I (R 2 QI, R 3 96)
ATH. 564 b. Aristotle says that lovers look at no other part
of the body of their beloved than the eyes, in which modesty
2 (R 2 92, R 3 97)
PLU. Pel. 18. 4. It is said also that lolaus, who was the
beloved of Hercules, shares in the contests of the Thebans
and throws the spear with them. Aristotle says that even in
his time lovers and their beloved still pledged their troth on
the tomb of lolaus.
Cf. PLU. Mor. 761 d-e.
3 (R 2 93, R 3 98)
PLU. Mor. 760 6-761 b. You know, I suppose, what led to
the death of Cleomachus of Pharsalus in battle. . . . He came
with the Thessalian army as an ally to the people of Chalcis,
when their war with the Eretrians was at its height. The
Chalcidians thought their infantry strong, but the repulsing
of the enemy s cavalry was a formidable task ; so his allies
called on Cleomachus, whose courage was famous, to lead
the attack against the cavalry. He asked his beloved, who
was present, whether he was going to watch the contest.
When the young man said "Yes", greeted him lovingly, and
nodded consent, Cleomachus, emboldened by this, called the
best of the Thessalians together round him, made a brilliant
charge, and fell on the enemy with such vigour as to throw
the cavalry into confusion and rout them. When as a result
1 R* s fr. 95 is omitted, because eV SeoW/xu tpwnxwv seems to refer not to
the Eroticus, which both Diogenes Laertius and Hesychius describe as having
one book, but to the Ototis tpuiriKai, which they both describe as having
of this the hoplites also took to flight, the Chalcidians gained
a mighty victory ; but it so happened that Cleomachus was
killed. The Chalcidians show in their market-place his tomb,
on which to this day the great pillar stands ; and to the love
of boys, which formerly they had reprehended, they from
that time gave more devotion and honour than others do.
Aristotle, however, says that Cleomachus died in other
fashion after defeating the Eretrians in battle, that the lover
in question was a Chalcidian from Thrace who was sent to
help the Chalcidians in Euboea, and that this is the origin
of the Chalcidian song "Children, heirs of Graces and of
splendid fathers, grudge not to the good the company of
youthful prime; for along with courage limb-loosing love
flourishes in the cities of the Chalcidians".
AL-DAILAMI, cod. Tubingen Weisweiler 81. It is said in a
certain book of the ancients that the pupils of Aristotle
assembled before him one day. And Aristotle said to them:
While I was standing on a hill I saw a youth, who stood on
a terrace roof and recited a poem, the meaning of which was:
Whoever dies of passionate love, let him die in this manner ;
there is no good in love without death. Then said his pupil
Issos: O philosopher, inform us concerning the essence of
love. And Aristotle replied: Love is an impulse which is
generated in the heart ; when it is once generated, it moves
and grows; afterwards it becomes mature. When it has
become mature it is joined by affections of appetite whenever
the lover in the depth of his heart increases in his excitement,
his perseverance, his desire, his concentrations, and his
wishes. And that brings him to cupidity and urges him to
demands, until it brings him to disquieting grief, continuous
sleeplessness, and hopeless passion and sadness and destruc
tion of mind.
Hist. Aug. 2. 97. 20-22 (Hohl). Nor, I suppose, are the argu
ments unknown which Cicero used in his Hortensius, which
he modelled on the Protrepticus.
NONIUS 394. 26-28. (Lindsay), s.v. contender e, intendere.
Cicero in the Hortensius: for great mental effort must be
applied to the explaining of Aristotle, if you are to read him.
MART. Cap. 5. 44. The question whether we ought to philo
sophize is discussed in the Hortensius.
1 (R 2 47, R 3 50, W l)
STOB. 4. 32. 21. From Teles Epitome. Zeno said that Crates,
as he sat in a shoemaker s workshop, read aloud the Pro
trepticus, which Aristotle had written to Themison king of
Cyprus, saying that no one had greater advantages for be
coming a philosopher ; he had great wealth, so that he could
afford to spend money on philosophy, and had reputation
as well. As he read, the shoemaker listened while he went on
with his stitching, and Crates said: I think, Philiscus, that
I shall inscribe a Protrepticus to you ; for I see you have more
advantages for the study of philosophy than were his 1 for
whom Aristotle wrote.
2 (R 2 50, R 3 51, W 2)
ALEX. APH. in Top. 149. 9-17. There are cases where, which
ever interpretation we adopt, we can on the basis of it refute
the proposition proposed. Suppose someone said we ought
not to pursue philosophy. Then, since even to inquire whether
we ought to philosophize or not is (as Aristotle himself said
in the Protrepticus) to philosophize, and since to pursue
1 Reading in R. 56. 21 77 a!, with Diels.
philosophical insight is also to philosophize, by showing that
each of these two things is natural to man we shall on all
counts refute the proposition proposed. In this case 1 our
proposition can be proved on both counts, but in the examples
first quoted it cannot be proved on all counts or on each of
two, but only on one or more. 2
Cf. Schol. in An. Pr., cod. Paris. 2064, f. 263 a, and Olymp.
in Ale. p. 144 (Creuzer).
ELI AS in Porph. 3. 17-23. We may also reason as Aristotle
does in his Protrepticus, in which he encourages young men
to philosophize. He says this: If we ought to philosophize
we ought to philosophize, and if we ought not to philosophize
we ought to philosophize ; in either case, therefore, we ought
to philosophize. For 3 if philosophy exists we ought certainly
to philosophize, because philosophy exists ; and if it does not
exist, even so we ought to examine why it does not exist,
and in examining this we shall be philosophizing, because
examination is what makes philosophy.
DAVID, Proll. 9. 2-12. Aristotle, too, in a hortatory work in
which he encourages young men to study philosophy, says
that whether we ought or ought not to philosophize, we ought
to philosophize, so that in either case we ought to philoso
phize. That is, if someone says philosophy does not exist,
he will have used arguments destructive of philosophy, but
if he has used arguments he is clearly philosophizing (for
philosophy is the mother of arguments). But if he says
philosophy exists, he again philosophizes ; for he will have
used arguments to prove that philosophy exists. In either
case, then, they philosophize, both he who denies and he
who does not deny that philosophy exists ; for each has used
arguments to justify what he says, and if he uses arguments
1 Reading in R. 57. 4 TOVTOV, with Wallies.
2 Reading in R. 57- 6 OVK eV iravrutv 77 eVare pou dAA 17 V TIVOS f/ fK TIVWV,
3 Omitting Tovrtartv in R. 57. 21, with Busse.
he clearly philosophizes; for philosophy is the mother of
Cf. LACT. Inst. 3. 16, and CLEM. AL. Strom. 6. 18, 162. 5.
3 (R 2 89, R3 57, w 3)
PAP. OXYRRH. 666 = STOB. 3. 3. 25. Seeing the misfortune
of these men, we ought to avoid it and to consider 1 that
happiness depends not on having many possessions but on
the condition of the soul. For one would say that it is not
the body which is decked with splendid clothing that is
happy, but that which is healthy and in good condition, even
if it has none of these things ; and in the same way, if the
soul has been disciplined, such a soul and such a man are to
be called happy, not a man splendidly decked with outer
things but himself worthless. It is not the horse which has
a golden bit and costly harness, but is itself a poor creature,
that we think worth anything ; what we praise is the horse
that is in good condition. Besides, when worthless men get
abundant possessions, they come to value these more than
the good of the soul ; which is the basest of all conditions.
If a man were inferior to his own servants, he would become
contemptible ; so too those for whom possessions are more
important than their own nature must be considered miser
able. This is indeed so; surfeit, as the proverb says, breeds
insolence ; possessions without discipline breed folly. For to
those who are ill-disposed in soul neither wealth nor strength
nor beauty is a good ; the more lavishly one is endowed with
these conditions, the more grievously and the more often do
they hurt him who possesses them but has not wisdom.
Give not a sword to a boy means do not entrust riches to bad
men . All men would admit that wisdom comes from learning
and from seeking the things to which philosophy gives the
key ; surely, then, we should sincerely pursue philosophy.
4 (w 4 )
IAMBL. Protr. b. 37. 3-22. The things with which we are
furnished for life the body and bodily things are provided
1 Reading in R. 67. 4 8f rrjv rovratv Bfuipovvras drvxiav favyuv xal vo^it,(iv,
as tools, and the use of them is dangerous ; they have rather
the contrary effect, for those who do not use them fittingly.
We ought therefore to desire knowledge to acquire it and
to use it aright if we are to attain all these good results. We
must, therefore, philosophize if we are to be good citizens,
and to lead our own life usefully. Further, there are some
branches of knowledge that produce each of the advantages
in life, others that use this first kind, others that minister
to them, others that commend them to our obedience ; and
in these last, as being more authoritative, consists the true
good. If, then, only the science that has correctness of judge
ment, that which uses reason, that which envisages good as
a whole which is philosophy can use and commend all
things according to nature, we ought to philosophize in
every possible way, since philosophy alone comprises right
judgement and impeccable commanding wisdom.
5 (RS 52, w 5)
IAMBL. Comm. Math. 26 (79. 1-81. 7 Festa). There have been
some ancients and some moderns who have maintained the
contrary view about mathematics, condemning it as com
pletely useless and as contributing nothing to human life.
Some people attack mathematics thus : If the end for whose
sake philosophers say we ought to study it is useless, much
more must the study itself be vain. Now about the end
all who are thought to have attained the greatest precision
in mathematics are pretty much agreed. Some say the end
is the knowledge of injustice and justice, of evil and good,
which they think akin to geometry and the kindred sciences ;
others think the end is wisdom with regard to nature and the
likethe kind of wisdom introduced by the schools of
Anaxagoras and Parmenides. He who is to consider these
matters must therefore not fail to observe that all things
good and useful for human life depend on use and action, not
on mere knowledge. We become healthy not by knowing the
things that produce health but by applying them to our
bodies ; we become wealthy not by knowing wealth but by
possessing much substance; most important of all, we live
well not by knowing something but by doing well ; for this
is true well-being. It follows that philosophy too, if it is to
be profitable, must be either a doing of good things or useful
as a means to such acts. Now, that neither philosophy nor
any other of the aforesaid sciences is a doing of actions is
clear to all ; that it is not useful as a means to action can be
seen from what follows. We have the best example in the
difference between the sciences akin to philosophy and the
doctrines that come under them. Take the things that
geometers study by way of demonstration; we do not see
them capable of doing any of these things. Land-surveyors
can divide an estate, they can by virtue of experience deal
with all the other properties of areas and regions ; but those
who concern themselves with mathematical proofs know
how they ought to act, but cannot act. The same is true of
music and of all the other arts in which the role of knowledge
is distinct from that of experience. For those who have
studied the proofs and syllogisms about harmony and such
like matters are (like the philosophers) accustomed to specu
lation but take no part in practice; if perchance they can
handle any of these matters practically, when they have
learned the proofs they at once, as if on purpose, do their
jobs worse. On the other hand, those who do not know the
theories, but have become habituated by training and hold
sound opinions, are altogether superior for practical purposes.
So too with regard to astronomical subjects the sun, the
moon, and the other stars those who have studied the
theoretical explanations know nothing that is useful to man
kind, while those who have what these others call the
navigational sciences can foretell for us storms, winds, and
many other phenomena. Thus such sciences will be com
pletely useless for practical purposes, and if they fall short
of correct practice the love of learning misses the greatest
To these objections we reply that there are mathematical
sciences and that they are capable of being acquired.
IAMBL. Protr. 6 (37. 26-41. 5 Pistelli). That we are capable
of acquiring the sciences that deal with the just and the
expedient, and also those that deal with nature and the rest
of reality, it is easy to show. The prior is always more know-
able than the posterior, and that which is naturally better
more knowable than that which is worse. For knowledge is
more concerned with things that are defined and ordered
than with their contraries, 1 and more with causes than with
effects ; now good things are more denned and ordered than
evil things, just as a good man is more defined and ordered
than a bad man ; there must be the same difference. Besides,
things that are prior are causes, more than things that are
posterior ; for if the former are removed the things that have
their being from them are removed, lines if numbers are
removed, planes if lines are removed, solids if planes are
removed, so-called syllables if the letters are removed. 2
Therefore if soul is better than body (being more of the
nature of a first principle), and there are arts and branches
of knowledge concerned with the body, namely medicine
and gymnastic (for we reckon these as sciences and say that
some people possess them), clearly with regard to the soul
too and its virtues there is a care and an art, and we can
acquire these, since we can do this even with regard to things
of which our ignorance is greater and knowledge is harder
to come by. So too with regard to nature ; it is far more
necessary to have knowledge of the causes and the elements
than to have knowledge of what follows from them ; for the
latter are not among the highest objects, and the first prin
ciples do not arise from them, but from and through the
first principles all other things manifestly proceed and are
constituted. Whether it be fire or air or number or other
natures that are the causes and originals of other things, if
we are ignorant of them we cannot know any of the other
things. How could one recognize speech if one did not know
the syllables, or know these if we knew none of the letters ?
On the theme that there is knowledge of truth and of
excellence of soul, and that we can acquire these, let this
suffice. That it is the greatest of goods and the most valuable
1 Reading in R. 60. 22 tariv i) r<Zv ivavrtiuv, In, with Pistelli.
2 Reading in R. 6l. I (after firtirc&wv) OTOixeiwv Sf at ovo^a^o^tvai avAAa/Scu,
of all things will be clear from what follows. We all agree that
the best man and the man of strongest character ought to
rule, and that the law alone is ruler and supreme ; now the
law is a form of wisdom, a form of words proceeding from
wisdom. Again, what standard, what determinant, of what
is good have we, other than the man of practical wisdom ?
The things that such a man would choose if his choice
followed his knowledge are good, and their contraries evil.
Now since all men choose by preference what accords with
their own characters, the just man choosing to live justly,
the brave man to live bravely, the temperate man to live
temperately, similarly it is clear that the wise man will
choose above all things to think wisely, that being the
exercise of this faculty. It is clear, then, that according
to the most authoritative opinion wisdom is the greatest
of goods. We ought, therefore, not to flee philosophy, if it
is, as we think, the acquisition and use of wisdom, and wis
dom is among the greatest goods ; and if in pursuit of gain
we run many risks by sailing to the pillars of Hercules, we
should not 1 shrink from labour or expense in the pursuit of
wisdom. Indeed, it is the part of a slave to desire life rather
than the good life, to follow the opinions of the many instead
of expecting the many to follow one s own, to seek gain and
pay no heed whatever to what is noble.
About the value and the greatness of the thing I think
we have proved our case. That the acquisition of wisdom is
much easier than that of other goods, one might be con
vinced by the following argument. Those who pursue philo
sophy get no reward from men to spur them to the efforts
they make ; they may have spent much on other branches
of knowledge, yet in a short time their progress in philosophy
outstrips their progress in other branches: that seems to
me a sign of the easiness of philosophy. So too the fact that
all men feel at home in philosophy and wish to spend their
lives in the pursuit of it, leaving all other cares, is no small
evidence that devotion 2 to it is pleasant ; for no one is willing
to suffer pain for long. Besides, the practice of philosophy is
1 Reading in R. 62. 9 ov&l Sef, with Pistelli.
2 Reading in R. 63. 6 wpoaeSpei a, with Pistelli.
pre-eminent in that its followers need no tools or places for
their work; wherever in the whole world one sets one s
thought to work, it is surrounded on all sides by the presence
Thus it has been proved that philosophy is possible, that
it is the greatest of goods, and that it is easy to acquire, so
that on all counts it is fitting that we should eagerly lay
hold of it.
PROCL. in End. 28. 13-22 (Friedlein). That to those who
pursue it mathematics is desirable for its own sake is shown,
as Aristotle somewhere says, by the fact that, though no
reward is held out to those who pursue it, facility in the
study of mathematics increases so rapidly, and also by the
fact that all who have had even a slight experience of what
it can give one feel at home in it and are willing to spend
their time in it, neglecting all else, so that those who despise
the knowledge 1 of mathematics can never themselves have
tasted its delights.
IAMBL. Protr. 7 (41. 15-43. 25 Pistelli). Part of us is soul, part
body ; the one rules, the other is ruled ; the one uses, the other
is present as its instrument. Therefore the use of the subject,
i.e. of the instrument, is always directed to that which rules
and uses. In the soul, reason is that which naturally rules
and judges of our own interest ; the other element follows
and its nature is to be ruled. It is in accordance with its
proper excellence that everything is well arranged; for to
attain this excellence is a good. Further, when the chief
parts, the supreme and most honourable parts, possess their
proper excellence, then is a thing well arranged; therefore
the natural excellence of that which is naturally better is
the better. Now that which is by nature more originative
and authoritative is the better, as man is in relation to the
other animals; therefore soul is better than body (being
more authoritative), and of soul, that which has reason and
1 Reading in R. 63. 8 -yvuoews, with the MSS.
thought ; for such is that which commands and forbids, and
says what we ought to do or not to do. Whatever excellence,
then, is the excellence of this part must be, for all beings in
general and for us in particular, the most desirable of all
things ; for one would (methinks) maintain that this part is,
either alone or above all other things, ourselves. Further,
when a thing achieves in the best way that which is, not by
accident but by its own nature, its work, then that thing
must be said to be good, and that excellence in virtue of
which each thing can achieve this result must be termed
its supreme excellence. Now that which is composite and
divisible into parts has several different activities, but that
which is by nature simple and whose being does not consist
in a relation to something else must have only one proper
excellence. If then man is a simple animal and his being is
ordered according to reason and intelligence, he has no
function other than the attainment of the most exact truth,
truth about reality ; but if he is composed of several faculties,
it is clear that where a thing naturally produces several results
the best of them is always its proper work ; health is the work
of the doctor, and safety that of the steersman. Now we
can name no better work of thought, or of the thinking part
of the soul, than the attainment of truth. Truth therefore
is the supreme work of this part of the soul. Now this work
it does simply in virtue of knowledge, or rather in virtue of
what is more completely knowledge, and the supreme end
of this is contemplation. For when of two things one is
worthy of choice for the sake of the other, the latter is better
and more worthy of choice, e.g. pleasure than pleasant
things, health than wholesome things ; for these are said to
be productive of those. Now than thought, which we main
tain to be the faculty of the supreme element in us, there is
nothing more worthy of choice, when one state is compared
with another ; for the part that knows, whether taken alone
or in combination with other parts, is better than all the
rest of the soul, and its excellence is knowledge. Therefore
none of the particular excellences is its work ; for it is better
than all of them, and the end produced is always better than
the knowledge that produces it. Nor is every excellence of
the soul the work of wisdom in this way, nor is happiness.
For if an excellence is to be productive, it will produce
results different from itself ; e.g. the art of building produces
a house but is not part of a house ; but wisdom is a part of
excellence and of happiness ; for we say that happiness either
comes from wisdom or is it. According to this argument also,
then, knowledge cannot be productive ; for the end must be
better than that which is coming to attain it, but nothing
is better 1 than wisdom, unless it be one of the things we
have named ; but none of these is a product distinct from
wisdom. Therefore we must say that this form of knowledge
is contemplative, since that which is the end cannot be a
process of production. Thinking and contemplation, therefore,
are the work of virtue, and this is of all things the most
worthy of choice for men, as (methinks) sight is for eyes;
one would choose to have sight even if nothing other than
sight itself were to result from it.
IAMBL. Protr. 7 (43. 25-45. 3 Pistelli). Further, if we love sight
for its own sake, that is sufficient evidence that all men love
thinking and knowing most of all. Again, if we love one
thing because some property attends on it, clearly we shall
wish more for that to which this property belongs in greater
degree ; e.g. if a man happens to choose walking because it
is healthy, but running is more healthy for him and he can
get it, he will (if he knows this) prefer running and choose it
rather than walking. If, therefore, true opinion is like know
ledge, then since true opinion is worthy of choice in respect
of being, 2 and in so far as it is, like knowledge by reason of
being true if knowledge is more true, it is more worthy of
choice than true opinion. But living is distinguished from
not living by sense-perception ; it is by the presence and
power of this that life has its distinctive character ; if this is
taken away life is not worth living it is as though life itself
were extinguished by the loss of sense-perception. Now of
1 Reading p&nov fan, suggested by Pistelli.
2 Reading ravrrf, suggested by Vitelli.
sense-perception one kind the power of sight is distin
guished by being the clearest, and it is for this reason that
we prefer it to the other senses ; but every sense acquires
knowledge by means of the body, as hearing perceives sound
by means of the ears. Therefore if life is worthy of choice
for the sake of perception, and perception is a kind of
knowing, and we choose it because the soul can come to
know by means of it, and (as we said before) of two things
that is always preferable which possesses the desirable quality
more fully, then of the senses sight must be the most worthy
of choice and honourable ; but knowledge is preferable to it
and to all the other senses, and to life itself, since it has a
stronger grasp of truth ; 2 so that all men aim at knowing,
most of all things. For in loving life they love thinking and
knowing; they value life for no other reason than for the
sake of perception, and above all for the sake of sight ; they
evidently love this faculty in the highest degree because it
is, in comparison with the other senses, simply a kind of
8 (R 2 i, R3 53, w 8)
Cic. Tusc. 3. 28. 69. Therefore Aristotle, criticizing the old
philosophers who had thought philosophy completed by
their intellectual labours, says they were either very stupid
or very conceited, but that he sees that, since great progress
has been made in a few years, philosophy will in a short time
be brought to completion.
IAMBL. Comm. Math. 26 (83. 6-22 Festa). The study of pre
cision with regard to the truth is admittedly the youngest
of all pursuits. For after the catastrophe of the flood men
were compelled to think first about food and the preservation
of life ; when they had become better provided they worked
out the arts that conduce to pleasure music and the like ;
and it was only when they had acquired more than enough
of the necessities of life that they essayed philosophy. But
1 Reading on Suotv, with Jaeger.
2 Reading xvpitarepa (ovoa), with Jaeger.
those who concern themselves with geometry and calculation
and the other sciences have from small beginnings made by
now such progress in a very short time as no other race has
made in any of the arts. Yet while all men join in promoting
the other arts by giving them public honour and rewarding
the artists, we not only do not encourage mathematicians,
but often even put difficulties in their way ; yet these studies
make most advance, 1 because they have a natural prece
dence; for that which is later in coming to be is prior in
essence and perfection.
9 (R 3 55, w 9)
IAMBL. Protr. 8 (45. 4-47. 4 Pistelli). It is worth while to
point out that the view in question follows from common
opinions, from views that are clearly held by all men.
To everyone this much is plain, that no one would choose
to live in receipt of the greatest wealth and power from men
but deprived of thought and mad not even if one were to
be pursuing 2 with delight the most violent pleasures, as some
madmen do. All men, then, it seems, shun above all things
the loss of their wits. Now the contrary of witlessness is
wisdom ; and of two contraries one is to be avoided, the other
to be chosen ; as illness is to be avoided, so health is to be
chosen. Thus according to this argument, too, in the light
of common opinion, it seems that wisdom is most of all to
be chosen, not for the sake of any 3 of its consequences. For
even if a man had everything, but were destroyed and
diseased in his thinking part, his life would not be worth
living, since even the other good things could not profit him.
Therefore all men, in so far as they are conscious of thinking
and can taste its savour/ reckon other things as nothing, and
for this reason not one of us would endure being drunk or
a child throughout his life. For this reason too, though sleep
is a very pleasant thing, it is not a thing to choose even if
1 Reading in R. 64. 12 -nXfiarov, with Festa.
2 Reading in R. 65. ^ SIOIKUV for wv, with Diels.
3 Reading in R. 65. 13-14 ou Si Irtpov n, with the MSS.
4 Reading in R. 65. 1819 oloBdvovrat TOU <f>povttv KOI ytveodai Svrarrai
rovrov TOV irpdyfiaros, ovbfv otovrcu, with the MSS.
we suppose the sleeper to have all possible pleasures, because
the images of sleep are false, while those of waking life are
true. Sleep and waking differ in nothing but the fact that
the soul when awake often knows the truth, but in sleep is
always deceived ; for the whole nature of dreams is an image
and a lie.
Again, the shrinking of most men from death shows the
soul s love of learning. For it shrinks from what it does not
know, from darkness and obscurity, and naturally seeks
what is manifest and knowable. This is, above all, the reason
why we say we ought to honour and revere supremely, as
authors of our greatest goods, the authors of our seeing the
sun and the light our fathers and mothers; these are, it
seems, the authors of our thinking and seeing. It is for the
same reason that we delight in things and men that are
familiar, and call dear those whom we know. These things,
then, show plainly that that which is knowable, manifest,
and clear is a thing to be loved, 1 and if that which is knowable
and clear, then also knowledge and thought are equally
necessary to us.
Besides this, just as in the case of property it is not the
same possession that conduces to life and to happy life, so
too in the case of thought we do not, methinks, need the
same with a view to mere life and with a view to the good
life. The bulk of mankind may well be pardoned for doing
as they do ; while they pray for happiness they are content
if they can but live. But unless one thinks one ought to endure
living on any terms whatever, it is ridiculous not to endure
every labour 2 and bestow every care to gain the wisdom
which will know the truth.
10 a (R 2 49, R3 59, w 10 a)
IAMBL. Protr. 8 (47. 5-21 Pistelli). One might know this even
from the following facts, if one viewed human life in a clear
light. For one will find that all the things men think great
are mere scene-painting ; whence it is rightly said that man
1 Reading in R. 66. 9 TO <j>avtpov KOI TO ofjXov dyairq-ro v, with the MSS.
2 Reading in R. 66. 18 TTOVOV un-o/jeVeiv, with the MSS.
is nothing, and nothing human is stable. Strength, size,
beauty are a laugh and nothing more, and beauty 1 seems
to be beauty only because we see nothing accurately. If one
could have seen as clearly as they say Lynceus did, who saw
through walls and trees, would one ever have thought any
man endurable to look at, when one saw 2 of what poor
materials he is made ? Honours and reputation, these much
envied things, are, even more than other things, full of
indescribable folly; for to him who catches a glimpse of
things eternal it seems foolish to busy himself with these
things. What is there among human things that is long-lived
or lasting ? It is owing to our weakness, methinks, and the
shortness of our life that even this appears great.
BOETH. Consol. 3. 8. How slight, how fragile is the tenure of
those who boast of bodily goods! Can you surpass the
elephant in size, the bull in strength, the tiger in speed?
Look to the vastness, the durability, the speed of the heavens,
and cease to marvel at those cheap possessions. No less than
for these qualities, the heavens are admirable for the reason
by which they are ruled. As for beauty, how swift is its
passing more fleeting than the flowers of spring! If, as
Aristotle says, men had had the eyes of Lynceus, so that
their sight could pierce through obstacles, would not the
body of Alcibiades, so fair on the surface, have seemed most
foul when its inward parts were seen ? So it is not your own
nature, but the weakness of the eyes which see you, that
makes you seem beautiful. But consider how excessive is
your desire of bodily goods, when you know that that which
you admire can be dissolved by the paltry fire of a tertian
Cic. Tusc. i. 39. 94. But what age can truly be called old?
What possession of man is lasting ? . . . Because we have
nothing more, we call this lasting ; all these things are called
long or short according to the proportion of each that is
given to each of us. By the river Hypanis, which flows into
1 Reading in R. 70. 6 *aAAos re, with the MSS.
2 Reading in R. 70. 9 6p<ut>, with the MSS.
the Pontus from the direction of Europe, Aristotle says there
are born little creatures which live for but one day. One of
these that has died at the eighth hour has died at an ad
vanced age ; one that has died at sunset is decrepit, especially
if it is on a midsummer day. Compare our longest life with
eternity ; we shall be found as short-lived as these little
SEN. Brev. Vit. i. 2. Aristotle s quarrel with the nature of
things is most unsuitable to a wise man. He says that nature
has indulged the animals so much that they live for five
of our generations, while man, born to so many and such
great achievements, has so much nearer a limit fixed for him.
10 b (R 2 36, R 3 60, w 10 b)
IAMB. Protr. 8 (47. 21-48. 9 Pistelli). Which of us, looking to
these facts, would think himself happy and blessed which
of us, all of whom (in the first place) are from the start (as
they say in the initiation rites) born as though for punish
ment ? For it is an inspired saying of the ancients that the
soul pays penalty and that we live for the punishment of
great sins. The conjunction of the soul with the body looks
very much like this. For as the Etruscans are said often to
torture captives by chaining dead bodies face to face with
the living, fitting part to part, so the soul seems to be ex
tended throughout and aifixed to all the sensitive members
of the body.
AUG. C. lul. Pel. 4. 15. 78. How much better and nearer the
truth than yours were the views about the generation of men
held by those whom Cicero, as though led and compelled by
the very evidence of the facts, commemorates in the last
part of the dialogue Hortensius ! After mentioning the many
facts we see and lament with regard to the vanity and the
unhappiness 1 of men, he says: From which errors and cares
of human life it results that sometimes those ancients
whether they were prophets or interpreters of the divine
1 Reading in R. 71. 16 infelicitate, with Migne.
mind by the transmission of sacred rites who said that we
are born to expiate sins committed in a former life, seem to
have had a glimpse of the truth, and that that is true which
Aristotle says, that we are punished much as those were
who once upon a time, when they had fallen into the hands
of Etruscan robbers, were killed with studied cruelty ; their
bodies, the living with the dead, were bound as exactly 1 as
possible one against another: so our minds, bound together
with our bodies, are like the living joined with the dead.
Cf. CLEM. AL. Protr. i. 7. 4.
10 c (R 2 48, R 3 61, w 10 c)
IAMBL. Protr. 8 (48. 9-21 Pistelli). Mankind has nothing
worthy of consideration as being divine or blessed, except
what there is in us of reason and wisdom ; this alone of our
possessions seems to be immortal, this alone to be divine.
By virtue of being able to share in this faculty, life, however
wretched and difficult by nature, is yet so cleverly arranged
that man seems a god in comparison with all other creatures.
For reason is the god in us (whether it was Hermotimus or
Anaxagoras that said so), and mortal life contains a portion
of some god . We ought, therefore, either to pursue philo
sophy or to say farewell to life and depart hence, since all
other things seem to be great nonsense and folly.
Cic. Fin. 2. 13. 39-40. I shall hold that we must first exclude
the opinions of Aristippus and the whole Cyrenaic school,
who were not afraid to place the supreme good in the pleasure
which moves our senses most delightfully, and spurned the
freedom from pain of which you speak. They did not see
that as the horse is born to run, the ox to plough, the dog
to follow a scent, so man (as Aristotle says) is bora as a sort
of mortal god to do two things for understanding and for
AUG. Trin. 14. 19. 26. Commending this contemplative
wisdom . . . Cicero says at the end of the dialogue Hortensius :
1 Reading in R. 71. 25 aptissime, with the MSS.
To us . . . who spend our lives in philosophy this is a great
hope that if that by which we feel and think is mortal and
perishable, we shall have a happy setting . . . and a rest from
life; if, on the other hand, as the ancient, the greatest and
far the most famous, philosophers thought, we have minds
eternal and divine, then we should reflect that the more
these minds have been constant in their courses in the use
of reason and in the desire of discovery and the less they
have mixed and implicated themselves in the vices and errors
of mankind, the easier will be their ascent and return to
heaven. Then, adding this very clause and summing up his
argument, he says: Wherefore to bring my speech at last
to an end if we wish either to be quietly extinguished when
we have lived our life in this prison, or to move without
delay from this to a far better home, all our interest and
concern must be bestowed on these studies.
II (w n)
IAMBL. Protr. 9 (49. 3-52. 16 Pistelli). Of things that come
into being some come from thought and art, e.g. a house or
a ship (for the cause of both of these is a certain art and
process of thought), while others come into being through
no art, but by nature ; nature is the cause of animals and
plants, and all such things come into being according to
nature. But some things, also, come into being as a result of
chance ; for of most of the things that come into being neither
by art nor by nature nor of necessity, we say that they come
into being by chance Now of the things that come into being
by chance none comes into being for the sake of anything,
nor have they an end ; but in the case of things that come
into being by art there is an end and an object of purpose
(for he who possesses the art will tell you the reason why he
wrote, and for what purpose he did so), and this is better
than that which comes into being for its sake. I speak of the
things of which art is the cause by its own nature and not by
accident ; for we should describe the art of medicine as pro
perly the art of health and not of disease, and architecture
as the art of making houses, not of pulling them down.
Everything, therefore, that is according to art comes into
being for the sake of something, and this is its best end, but
that which comes into being by chance does not come into
being for the sake of anything ; something good might come
into being by chance, yet in respect of chance and in so far
as it results from chance it is not good that which comes
into being by chance is always indeterminate. But that
which comes into being according to nature does so for an
end, and is always constituted to better purpose than the
product of art; for nature does not imitate art, but vice
versa ; art exists to aid nature and to fill up its deficiencies.
For some things nature seems able to complete by itself
without assistance, but others it does with difficulty or can
not do at all in the matter of birth, to take an obvious
example ; some seeds generate without protection, whatever
ground they fall into, others need the art of farming as well ;
and similarly some animals attain their full nature by them
selves, but man needs many arts for his preservation, both
at birth and in the matter of nutrition later. If, then, art
imitates nature, it is from nature that the arts have derived
the characteristic that all their products come into being for
an end ; for we should describe as coming into being for an
end everything that comes into being rightly. Now that which
comes into being beautifully comes into being rightly ; and
everything that comes into being or has come into being
according to nature 1 comes into or has come into being
beautifully, since that which is contrary to nature is bad and
contrary to that which is according to nature ; natural coming
into being, 2 therefore, is for an end. This one can see from
any one of our parts ; if you were to consider the eyelid, you
would see that it has come into being not at random but to
aid the eyes to give them rest and to ward off things that
are falling on to them. Therefore that for the sake of which
something has come into being is the same as that for which
it ought to have come into being ; if it was right that a ship
should come into being to provide transport by sea, it is for
that reason that it has come into being. Now either absolutely
1 Omitting nyv.
2 Reading rut Kara tfivcnv tvavriov 17 ovv Kara <f>vatv yevtois, with Vitelli.
all animals belong to the class of things that have come into
being by nature, 1 or the best and most honourable of them
do ; for it makes no difference if someone thinks most animals
have come into being contrary to nature, to destroy and do
mischief. Now man is the most honourable of the animals
in the world, so that clearly he has come into being by nature
and according to nature ; and knowledge is that for the sake
of which nature and God have brought us into being. Pytha
goras, when asked what this end is, said to observe the
heavens , and used to say he was an observer of nature and
it was for this that he had come into being. And they say
that Anaxagoras, when asked for what end one would choose
to come into being and to live, replied to observe the heavens
and the stars, moon, and sun in them , everything else being
nothing worth. If, then, the end of each thing is always
better than the thing (for everything that comes into being
does so for the sake of its end, and its end is better and the
best of all things), and if that which is completed last in order
of generation when this proceeds continuously is the natural
end, we note that the bodily parts of men are completed
first and the mental parts later, and the completion of the
better is, one may say, always later than its generation.
Therefore soul is later than body, and wisdom is the latest
of the qualities of the soul ; for we see that by nature it is
the latest faculty to come into being for men that is why
old age lays special claim to this alone of good things ; there
fore some form of wisdom is by nature our end, and the
exercise of it the final activity for whose sake we have come
into being. Now if we have come into being in order to
exercise it and to learn, we also exist for that end. According
to this argument, then, Pythagoras was right in saying that
every man has been created by God in order to know and
to observe. But whether the object of this knowlege is the
world or something whose nature is different, we must con
sider later ; what we have said suffices as a first conclusion ;
for if wisdom is our natural end, the exercise of it must be
the best of all things. Therefore the other things we ought
to do, we ought to do for the sake of the goods that come
1 Reading in rwv (f>vaei yeyxmrjfjifvwv, with the MSS.
into being in oneself, 1 and of these the bodily actions should
be done for the sake of the mental, and virtue should be
practised for the sake of wisdom ; for this is the supreme end.
12 (R 3 58, W 12)
AUG. Trin. 14. 9. 12. Cicero in his dialogue Hortensius argues
thus: If we, when we depart 2 this life, were permitted to
live for ever, as the fables say, in the islands of the blest,
what need should we have of eloquence when there were no
causes to be pleaded or even of the virtues themselves?
We should not need courage, where no task or danger was
prescribed to us, nor justice, where there was no property of
another for us to seek, nor temperance, to rule non-existent
lusts. We should not need even prudence, where no choice
between goods and evils was held out to us. We should be
blessed by the possession of one thing only science and
knowledge of nature, for which alone the life of the gods is
to be praised. From this it may be seen that other things
are matters of necessity, and only this a matter of choice.
Thus that great orator, when he was preaching philosophy by
repeating and expounding splendidly and persuasively what
he had received from the philosophers, said that it is only
in this life, which we see to be full of cares and errors, that
all the four virtues are necessary.
IAMBL. Protr. 9 (52. 16-54. 5 Pistelli). To seek from all
knowledge a result other than itself, and to demand that
knowledge must be useful, is the act of one completely ignor
ant of the distance that from the start separates things good
from things necessary ; they stand at opposite extremes. For
of the things without which life is impossible those that are
loved for the sake of something else must be called necessities
and contributing causes, but those that are loved for them
selves even if nothing follows must be called goods in the
strict sense. This is not desirable for the sake of that, and
that for the sake of something else, and so ad infinitum ; there
is a stop somewhere. It is completely ridiculous, therefore, to
1 Reading avria.
2 Reading in R. 68. 3 emigraverimus, with the MSS.
demand from everything some benefit other than the thing
itself, and to ask What then is the gain to us ? and What
is the use ? for in truth, as we maintain, he who asks this
is in no way like one who knows the noble and good, or who
distinguishes causes from accompanying conditions. One
would see the supreme truth of what we are saying, if some
one 1 carried us in thought to the islands of the blest. There
there would be need of nothing, no profit from anything ;
there remain only thought and contemplation, which even
now we describe as the free life. If this be true, would not
any of us be rightly ashamed if when the chance was given
us to live in the islands of the blest, he were by his own fault
unable to do so ? Not to be despised, therefore, is the reward
that knowledge brings to men, nor slight the good that comes
from it. For as, according to the wise among the poets, we
receive the gifts of justice in Hades, so (it seems) we gain
those of wisdom in the islands of the blest. It is nowise
strange, then, if wisdom does not show itself useful or ad
vantageous ; we call it not advantageous but good, it should
be chosen not for the sake of anything else, but for itself.
For as we travel to Olympia for the sake of the spectacle
itself, even if nothing were to follow from it (for the spectacle
itself is worth more than much wealth), and as we view the
Dionysia not in order to gain anything from the actors
(indeed we spend money on them), and as there are many
other spectacles we should prefer to much wealth, so too the
contemplation of the universe is to be honoured above all
the things that are thought useful. For surely it cannot be
right that we should take great pains to go to see men
imitating women and slaves, or fighting and running, just
for the sake of the spectacle, and not think it right to view
without payment the nature and reality of things.
13 (W 13)
IAMBL. Protr. 10 (54. 10-56. 12 Pistelli). That theoretical
wisdom also provides us with the greatest advantages for
1 Reading after Aeyo/xev in R. 69. I oi)8ev IOIKCV 6 TOIOUTO? ci Scm KaXov
KayaQov o58e ri ainov TU> SiayiyvcuffK-ovri nai avvainov. TSoi 8 dv rt? on TTO.VTOS
pdX\ov dXrjOrj ravra. Xeyopfv, (I ns crA., with the MSS.
human life, one will discover easily from studying the arts.
For as all skilful physicians and most gymnasts agree that
those who are to be good physicians or gymnasts must have
experience of nature, so it is agreed that good legislators
must have experience of nature, and indeed much more than
the former. For the former are producers only of bodily
excellence, while those who are concerned with the excellences
of the soul and undertake to give instruction about the well-
being and the ill-being of the state need philosophy far more.
As in the mechanical arts the best instruments have been
borrowed from nature (e.g. in carpentry the ruddled line,
the rule, and the lathe were suggested by the surface of
water and by the rays of light, 1 and it is by reference to
these that we test what is to our senses sufficiently straight
or smooth) , similarly the statesman must borrow from nature
and reality certain limits by reference to which he will judge
what is just, noble, or advantageous ; for as these tools excel
all others, so the law that conforms best with nature is the
best. Now this he cannot do unless he has practised philo
sophy and learned the truth. And in the other arts men do
not take their tools and their most accurate calculations
from the originals themselves and so attain something
approaching to knowledge ; they take them from copies at
second or third hand or at a distant remove, and base their
reasonings on experience. The philosopher alone copies the
exact originals ; he is a spectator of them and not of copies.
As, then, he is not a good builder who does not use a straight
rule or any other such instrument but compares his own
building with others, so, presumably, if one either lays down
laws for cities or does actions of his own, looking to and
copying other actions or human constitutions, whether of
Sparta or of Crete or of any other state, he is not a good
lawgiver nor a virtuous man ; for an imitation of what is not
good cannot be good, nor can an imitation of what is not
divine and durable in its nature be immortal and durable ;
it is clear 2 that to the philosopher alone among craftsmen
belong laws that are durable and actions that are right and
1 The text is corrupt, but the general sense is clear.
2 Reading dAAd SijXov on KT\., with Vitelli.
noble. For he alone lives with his eye on nature and the
divine, and like a good steersman directs his life 1 in depen
dence on what is eternal and unchanging, and lives his
own master. This knowledge is theoretical indeed, but it
enables us to frame all our practice in accordance with it.
For as sight makes and shapes nothing (since its only work is
to judge and to show us everything that can be seen), and
yet it enables us to act as it directs, and gives us the greatest
assistance towards action (for we should be almost entirely
motionless if deprived of it), so it is clear that, though know
ledge is theoretical, yet we do a host of things in accordance
with it, choose some actions and avoid others, and in general
gain as a result of it all the goods we possess.
14 (w 14)
IAMB. Protr. n (56. 13-59. *& Pistelli). That those who have
chosen the life according to reason also enjoy life most will
be clear from the following argument. The word live seems
to be used in two senses, one implying a potentiality, the
other an actuality ; for we describe as seeing both those
animals which have sight and are born capable of seeing,
even if they happen to have their eyes shut, and those which
are using this faculty and looking definitely at something.
Similarly with cognition or knowing ; we sometimes mean by
it the use of the faculty, actual contemplation, and sometimes
the possession of the faculty of knowledge. If, then, we dis
tinguish life from non-life by the possession of perception,
and perception has two meanings, meaning properly the
using of the senses, but in another significance the being
able to use them (it is for this reason, it seems, that we say
even a sleeping man perceives), 2 it is clear that live will
correspondingly have two meanings; a waking man must
be said to live in the true and proper sense, a sleeping man
must be said to live because he is capable of passing into the
activity in virtue of which we say that a man is waking and
perceiving something ; it is for this reason and with reference
1 Reading oprf, with the MSS.
2 It is not necessary to assume the existence of a lacuna here. For japfv
Xtyovres cf. L. and S. s.v. fa pi II. 2.
to this that we describe him as living. 1 When, therefore, each
of two things is called by the same name, and one of the two
is so called by virtue of acting or being acted on, 2 we shall
assign the name by preference to this one ; we shall use the
word know rather of him who is using than of him who
merely possesses knowledge, and see rather of him who is
directing his sight than of him who merely can do so. For
we apply the comparative degree not only to that which
possesses more completely an attribute that has a single
definition, but also to that whose possession of the attribute
is prior; e.g. we say that health is better than wholesome
things, and that which is by its own nature worthy of choice
than that which tends to produce this, though we see that
it is not by virtue of the definition s being predicable of both
that we describe both useful things and virtue as good. Thus
we must assign life in a higher degree to a waking man than
to a sleeping one, to a man who is exercising his soul than
to one who merely possesses a soul ; for it is because of the
former that we assign life also to the latter, because he is such
as to act, or be acted on, in the former way. 3 The exercising of
anything, then, is this: if the faculty admits only of one
realization, it is exercised when one does just that thing;
if the faculty admits of more than one realization, it is exer
cised when one brings about its best realization; e.g. one
uses the flute either only, or most completely, when one is
actually playing it ; for presumably it is on the basis of this
that the uses of it by other people are called uses. So
we must say that he who uses a thing aright uses it in a
higher degree, since the natural purpose 4 and the natural
manner belong to the man who uses the thing well and
accurately. Now thinking and reasoning are, either alone or
above everything else, the work of the soul. It is a simple
inference, one that anyone can easily draw, that the man
who thinks aright lives in a higher degree than others, that
he who reaches truth in the highest degree lives in the
1 Placing the full stop after jSAeWrey, not after TU-OJ.
2 Reading TO) Troiefv 17 rw irdaxfw? with the MSS.
3 Reading eVetVws, as suggested by Pistelli.
4 Reading c<f> 5, with the MSS.
highest degree, and that this is the man who thinks and
theorizes according to the most precise knowledge ; and it is
then and to these men that living completely must be
ascribed to those who think and to those who have the
capacity to think. Now if living is, alike for every animal,
its true being, it is clear that the thinker will be in the
highest degree and in the most proper sense, and most of
all when he is exercising this faculty and contemplating
what is the most knowable of all things. But further,
perfect and unimpeded activity contains in itself delight, so
that the activity of contemplation must be the most pleasant
of all. Further, there is a difference between enjoying
oneself while drinking and enjoying drinking; for there is
nothing to prevent a man who is not thirsty, or is not getting
the drink he enjoys, from enjoying himself while drinking,
not because he is drinking but because he happens at the
same time to be looking at something, or to be looked at, as
he sits. So we shall say that such a man enjoys himself, and
enjoys himself while drinking, but not because he is drinking,
nor that he is enjoying drinking. In the same way we shall
say that walking, sitting down, learning, any activity, is
pleasant or painful, not if we happen to feel pain or pleasure
in the presence of these activities, but if we are all pained
or pleased by their presence. Similarly we shall call that life
pleasant whose presence is pleasant to those who have it ;
we shall say that not all who have pleasure while living
enjoy living, but only those to whom life itself is pleasant
and who rejoice in the pleasure that comes from living. Now
we assign life to the man who is awake rather than to him
who is asleep, to him who thinks rather than to him who is
thoughtless, and we say the pleasure of living is the pleasure
we get from the exercise of the soul; that is true life. If,
then, there are more than one exercise of the soul, still the
chief of all is that of thinking as well as possible. 1 It is clear,
then, that the pleasure arising from thinking and contempla
tion is, alone or most of all, the pleasure of living. Pleasant
life and enjoyment, therefore, belong in truth only to philo
sophers, or to them most of all. For the activity of our truest
1 Reading on /toAicn-a, with Walzer.
thoughts, that which is replenished from the most real
realities, and preserves steadfastly for ever the perfection it
receives, this is of all activities the most productive of joy.
Thus even for the sake of enjoying true and good pleasures
men of sense ought to practise philosophy.
15 (W 15)
IAMBL. Protr. 12 (59. 19-60. 15 Pistelli). If we ought to draw
this conclusion not only from considering the elements of
well-being, but also start higher up and establish it by con
sidering well-being as a whole, let us say explicitly that as
philosophizing is related to well-being, so is it related to the
acquisition by us of anything good or bad. For it is as leading
to this or as following from it that the existence of anything is
for all men worthy of desire, and some of the things through
which we have well-being are such because they are neces
sary, some because they are pleasant. Now we define well-
being either as thoughtfulness (a sort of wisdom), or as virtue,
or as the extreme of enjoyment, or as all of these together. If
it is thoughtfulness, clearly philosophers alone will live hap
pily ; if it is excellence of the soul or enjoyment, then, too, it
will belong to them alone or most of all ; for the highest element
in us is virtue, and thinking is the most pleasant of all single
things. Similarly, if one says that all these things together
are well-being, well-being must be denned as thinking. 1
Therefore all who can should practise philosophy ; for this
is either complete good life, or of all single things most truly
the cause of good life for souls. In this world, I suppose
because life in it is unnatural to our race, learning and in
sight are difficult, and perception scarcely to be obtained 2
because of our awkward and unnatural mode of life ; but if
we can ever escape back to the place from which we have
come, it is clear that we shall all do these things more
pleasantly and more easily.
16 (R 2 77, R 3 90, W 16)
ATH. 335 f. . . . enjoying the life of Sardanapallus, son of
1 Reading -ru> (f>poveiv.
2 Reading ^oAu dv aladdvoiro, suggested by Pistelli.
Anacyndaraxes, whom Aristotle described as even sillier
than 1 the name of his father would suggest.
Cic. Tusc. 5. 35. 101. How then can a life be pleasant from
which prudence and moderation are absent ? We see from
this the error of Sardanapallus, the wealthy king of Syria,
who ordered these words to be engraved on his tomb : What
I ate and what sated lust drained to the dregs, that I
have; many a famous deed lies left behind. What else ,
Aristotle says, would you have inscribed on the grave, not
of a king but of an ox ? He says he had in death the things
which even in life he had no longer than for the moment of
Cf. STRABO 14. 5. 9, p. C 672 ; Cic. Fin. 2. 32. 106.
17 (R 3 54)
CHALC. in Tim. 208-9 (Wrobel). In this Aristotle also agrees,
saying that children at first, while still un weaned, think all
men their fathers and all women their mothers, but as they
grow up come to draw distinctions, and yet sometimes fail
to do so, since they are often taken in by false images and
hold out their hands to a mere simulacrum. He calls all these
opinions unmanly; those who hold them think that the
things that hurt us are beneficial and those that help us
noxious; they are led towards pleasure that destroys, and
take offence at healthy toil. This would certainly never have
happened if they had not trusted too much to the senses,
which by nature are most lively when they deceive. To make
the whole matter plain, Aristotle uses an example of crystal
clearness. The height of madness is reached when a man not
only is ignorant, but does not know what he is ignorant of,
and therefore gives his assent to false images and takes those
that are true to be false ; as when men think that vice profits
them and virtue acts to their prejudice and ruin. . . . These
men Aristotle calls old children, because their mind differs
very little from a child s.
1 Reading in R. 91. 2 eu-ai fj Kara, with Madvig.
18 (w 18)
Cic. Tusc. 5. 30. 85. The case of the Peripatetics has been
unfolded apart from the views of Theophrastus and those
who, following him, show a weak dread of and shrinking
from pain ; the rest may do what they in fact practically do, to
exaggerate the importance and dignity of virtue. When they
have extolled it to the skies, which these eloquent men are
wont to do at length ... 31. 87 according to the reasoning of
these men the happy life will follow virtue even if it leads to
torture, and will descend with it into the tyrant s bull, 1 with
Aristotle, Xenocrates, Speusippus, and Polemon, to en
courage it ; it will never, seduced by threats or blandish
ments, desert virtue.
Ibid. 5. 10. 30. I do not, therefore, readily allow my friend
Brutus, or our common masters, or the ancients, Aristotle,
Speusippus, Xenocrates, and Polemon, when they count as
evils the things I have enumerated above, at the same time
to say that the wise man is always happy. If this noble and
beautiful title, most worthy of Pythagoras, Socrates, and
Plato, delights them, let them bring themselves to despise
the things by whose splendour they are attracted strength,
health, beauty, riches, honours, power and to count their
opposites as nothing ; then they will be able with a voice of
crystal clearness to profess that they are terrified neither by
the onslaught of fortune, by the opinion of the multitude, by
pain, nor by poverty, that everything lies in themselves, that
there is nothing outside their power which they should
reckon as a good.
Cf. ibid. 5. 13. 39.
Cic. Fin. 5. 5. 12. But since the happy life is sought for, and
the one thing that philosophy ought to consider and pursue is
the question whether happiness is entirely in the power of the
wise man, or whether it can be weakened or snatched from
1 Phalaris brazen bull.
him by adversity, on this point there seems to be sometimes
variation and doubt among philosophers. This impression is
produced most strongly by Theophrastus book on the happy
life, in which a great deal is ascribed to fortune. If this were
true, wisdom could not guarantee a happy life. This seems
to me, so to speak, a softer and more timid line of thought
than that demanded by the force and dignity of virtue.
Let us, therefore, cling to Aristotle and his son Nicomachus
. . . but let us follow Theophrastus in most things, only
allowing virtue more firmness and strength than he did. . . .
14 Our own Antiochus seems to me to follow most faithfully
the opinion of the ancients, which was (he maintains) com
mon to Aristotle 1 and to Polemon.
19 (R 3 25, W 19)
CENSOR, c. 18. n. There is, too, a year which Aristotle calls
not the great but the greatest, which the spheres of the sun,
the moon, and the five planets complete when they return
together to the same constellation with which they were
formerly in conjunction.
Cic. N.D. 2. 20. 51-52. Most admirable are the motions of
the five stars which we wrongly call wandering stars. ... It
is on the basis of their diverse motions that mathematicians
have given the name of great year to that which is com
pleted when the sun, the moon, and the five wandering
stars, the course of all of them completed, have returned
to the same relative positions. How long this period is, is
a great question, but it must be certain and definite.
Cf. Cic. Hortensius, fr. 35 Miiller; TAG. Dial. 16. 7.
TERT. De An. 46. How many writers have commented on
this matter 2 and asserted its existence Artemon, Antiphon,
1 Reading Aristotelis, with some MSS.
2 sc. interpretation of dreams.
Strato, Philochorus, Epicharmus, Serapion, Cratippus, Diony-
sius Rhodius, Hermippus, the whole literature of the age!
If I laugh at anyone it will be at the writer who thought he
could persuade us that Saturn was the first to dream; he
could be this only if he was the first to live. Aristotle, pardon
1 (R 2 86, R3 56)
PLU. Pel. 3. i. Of the general run of people, as Aristotle says,
some through meanness do not use their wealth, others
through extravagance misuse it; the latter are permanent
slaves to their pleasures, the former to their business.
PLU. Mor. 527 a. Aristotle says that some men do not use
wealth, others misuse it, implying that both are wrong;
the former get no benefit or grace from what they have, the
latter derive injury and disgrace.
2 (R 2 87, R3 89)
Cic. Off. 2. 16. 56-57. How much more weight and truth
there is in Aristotle s reproach to us for not wondering at
these lavish sums spent on cajoling the mob! That men
besieged by an enemy should be forced into paying a mina
for a pint of water, that (he says) seems incredible when we
first hear of it, and we all marvel at it, but when we consider
it we pardon their necessity; in these vast and boundless
expenditures there is nothing that much surprises us, and
that though there is no relief of necessity, no increase of
dignity, and the very delight of the multitude is shortlived
and derived from the meanest objects, and when satiation
comes the very memory of the pleasure dies. He sums up
the matter well when he says these things gratify children
and mere women, slaves and freemen who are like slaves,
but can in no way be approved by a serious man who weighs
events with solid judgement.
PHILOD. Pap. Here. 3, p. 41, col. 211. Which happened to
Aristotle (as Metrodorus proved) in respect of the argument,
in the work On Wealth, to show that the good man is also
a good money-maker, and the bad man a bad money-maker.
i (R Z 46, R 3 49, w i)
SIMP, in De Caelo 485. 19-22. That Aristotle has the notion
of something above reason and being is shown by his saying
clearly, at the end of his book On Prayer, that God is either
reason or something even beyond reason.
ON GOOD BIRTH
1 (R 2 82, R 3 Ql)
STOB. 4. 29 A 24. From Aristotle On Good Birth. With regard
to good birth, I for my part am quite at a loss to say whom
one should call well-born.
Your difficulty , I said, is quite natural ; for both among
the many and even more among the wise there is division
of opinion and obscurity of statement, particularly about
the significance of good birth. What I mean is this: Is it
a precious and good thing, or, as Lycophron the sophist
wrote, 1 something altogether trivial? Comparing it with
other goods, he says the attractiveness of good birth is
obscure, and its dignity a matter of words; i.e. that the
preference for it is a matter of opinion, and in truth there is
no difference between the low-born and the well-born.
2 (R 2 83, R 3 92)
STOB. 4. 29 A 25. In the same book. Just as it is disputed
what size is good, 2 so it is disputed who those are who ought
to be called well-born. Some think it is those born of good
ancestors, which was the view of Socrates; he said that
because Aristides was good his daughter was nobly born.
They say that Simonides, when asked who it is that are
well-born, said "those whose family has long been rich";
but at that rate Theognis caustic observation is wrong, and
so is that of the poet who wrote "Mortals honour good birth,
but marry rather with the rich". 3 Good heavens, is not a
man who is rich himself preferable to one who had a rich
great-grandfather or some other rich ancestor, but is himself
Surely, he said.
And one ought to marry with the rich rather than with
the well-born; for it is people of long ago that were well-
1 Reading in R. 92. 4 Avxojpwv 6 ao^ar^ fypo^e, with the MSS.
2 sc. in any given type of thing. Eur. fr. 399 Nauck.
born, but people of today that are more powerful. Is it not
much the same, then, if one supposes that it is not those
born of rich ancestors but those born of good ancestors that
are well-born? One would suppose that recent goodness is
better than ancient, that a man has more in common with
his father than with his great-grandfather, and that it is
preferable to be good oneself rather than to have a great
grandfather or some other ancestor who was good.
You are right/ he said.
Well then, since we see that good birth does not consist
in either of these things, should we not look elsewhere to
see what it consists in ?
We should, he said.
"Good" means, I suppose, something praiseworthy and
excellent ; e.g. having a good face or good eyes means, on
this showing, something excellent or beautiful.
Certainly, he said.
Well then, having a good face means having the goodness
proper to a face, and having good eyes means having the
goodness proper to eyes, does it not ?
Yes/ he said.
But one stock is good, another bad and not good.
Certainly/ he said.
And we say each thing is good in virtue of the excellence
proper to it, so that a stock is good in the same way.
Yes/ he said.
Clearly, then/ I said, good birth is excellence of stock/
3 (R* 84, R3 93)
DIOG. LAERT. 2. 5. 26 (10). Aristotle says Socrates married
two wives first Xanthippe, who bore him Lamprocles, and
then Myrto, daughter of Aristides the Just, whom he took
though she had no dowry, and who bore him Sophroniscus
PLU. Aristid. 27. 2. Demetrius of Phaleron, Hieronymus of
Rhodes, Aristoxenus the writer on music, and Aristotle (if
the work On Good Birth is to be reckoned among his genuine
ON GOOD BIRTH 61
works) relate that Myrto, granddaughter of Aristides, lived
with the Sage Socrates, who was married to another woman
but took Myrto under his protection because she was a
widow, poor and lacking in the necessities of life.
ATH. 555 d-556 a. Starting from these facts, one must blame
those who assign to Socrates two wedded wives, Xanthippe
and Myrto the daughter of Aristides not Aristides the Just,
for the dates do not permit of this, but the third in descent
from him. These writers are Callisthenes, Demetrius of
Phaleron, Satyrus the Peripatetic, Aristoxenus ; Aristotle
gave them the keynote by relating this in his work On Good
4 (RZ 85, R3 94)
STOB. 4. 29 c 52. From Aristotle s work On Good Birth. It
is evident, then , I said, from our previous discussion, why
those born of a long line of rich or good ancestors are thought
to be better born than those whose possession of these ad
vantages is recent. A man s own goodness is nearer to him
than that of a grandfather, and on that basis it would be the
good man that is well-born. And some writers have said this,
claiming to disprove by this argument the merits of good
birth ; Euripides, for example, says 1 that good birth belongs
not to those whose ancestors have long been good, but to
him who is himself good, simply. That is not so ; those are
right who give the preference to ancient virtue. Let us state
the reasons for this. Good birth is excellence of stock, and
excellence belongs to good men ; and a good stock is one in
which there have been many good men. Now this happens
when the stock has had a good origin ; for an origin has the
power of producing many products like itself; this is the
function of an origin to produce many results like itself.
When, then, there has been one man of this kind in the
stock, a man so good that many generations inherit his good
ness, that stock is bound to be good. There will be many good
men if the stock is human, many good horses if it is equine,
1 fr. 345 Nauck.
and so too with the other animals. Thus it is natural that not
rich men nor good men, but those whose ancestors have long
been rich or good, should be well-born. The argument has
its eye on the truth ; the origin counts more than anything
else. Yet not even those born of good ancestors are in every
case well-born, but only those who have among their ances
tors originators. When a man is good himself, but has not
the natural power to beget many like him, the origin has not
in such a case the power we have ascribed to it.
. . . People are well-born if they come of such a stock not
if their father is well-born, but if the originator of the stock
is so. For it is not by his own strength that a father begets
a good man, but because he came of such a stock.
I 1 (R 2 72, R3 83)
ATH. 6 d. Others call Philoxenus a fish-lover, but Aristotle
calls him simply a dinner-lover. He also writes somewhere
as follows: When they are making speeches to crowded
audiences they spend the whole day in relating marvels, and
that to people who have just returned from the Phasis or
the Borysthenes, 2 when they have themselves read nothing
but Philoxenus Banquet, and not the whole of that.
1 Rose places this fragment under the work On Justice, but it seems to have
no connexion with that subject. It is in connexion with the love of bodily
pleasures that Philoxenus is mentioned in Eth. Eud. I23i a 5~i7, and alluded
to in Eth. NIC. m8 a 32- b i, so that the description of him as a dinner-lover
is more likely to have occurred in the dialogue On Pleasure. In what work of
Aristotle the words actually quoted by Athenaeus occurred, it is impossible
2 The Rion or the Dnieper.
1 (R 2 51, R 3 62)
PLU. Mor. 734 d. Florus was full of problems himself, and
he used to share them with his associates, bearing witness
to Aristotle s saying that much learning brings many
2 (R 2 52, R 3 63)
DIOG. LAERT. 9. 8. 53 (4). Protagoras was the first to discover
the so-called knot on which porters carry their burdens so
Aristotle says in his work On Education ; for Protagoras was
a porter, as Epicurus also says somewhere. It was in this
way that Protagoras was brought to the notice of Demo-
critus, who saw how he had bound his logs together.
Cf. ATM. 354 c.
Cic. Att. 12. 40. 2. I often try a letter of advice ; I find noth
ing to say. I have, indeed, with me the books both of Aris
totle and of Theopompus addressed to Alexander. But what
resemblance is there ? They wrote what was both honourable
to them and acceptable to Alexander ; do you find anything
of that sort here ?
Ibid. 13. 28. 2. Nothing comes into my mind. You see what
the advice sent to Alexander by eloquent and learned men
is concerned with. They exhort to honourable conduct 2 a
young man kindled by desire for the truest glory, wishing
for some advice that shall redound to his eternal praise.
Ps.-AMM. in Cat. (Ven. 1546, f. gb). Those works are per
sonal which were written to some individual in particular,
as for instance letters or what Aristotle wrote at the request
of Alexander of Macedon about kingship and about the right
way of establishing colonies.
I (R 2 78, R3 646)
Ps.-AMM. in Cat. (Ven. 1546, f. 56). Aristotle wrote to
Alexander also about kingship, in a one-volume book, in
structing him how he ought to rule.
Vit. Arist Marc. p. 430. 15-431. 2 (Rose). In order to confer
a benefit on all men, Aristotle writes a book addressed to
Alexander on kingship, instructing him how he should rule.
This had such an effect on Alexander s mind that when he
had failed to confer a benefit on anyone he said: Today
I have not been king ; I have done good to no one.
1 To Caesar.
2 Reading in R. 408. 24 cohortantur ad decus, with the MSS.
2 (R 2 79, R3 647)
THEM. Or. 107 c-d. Plato, even if in all other respects he
was divine and admirable, was completely reckless when he
uttered this saying, that evils would never cease for men
until either philosophers became rulers, or kings became
philosophers. His saying has been refuted and has paid its
account to time. We should do honour to Aristotle, who
slightly altered Plato s words and made his counsel truer;
he said that it was not merely unnecessary for a king to be
a philosopher, but even a disadvantage ; what he should do
was to listen to and take the advice of true philosophers,
since then he filled his reign with good deeds, not with good
1 (R 2 80, R3 648)
Ps.-AMM. in Cat. (Yen. 1546, f. gb). See p. 65 supra.
2 (R 2 8i, R 3 658)
PLU. Mor. 329 b. Alexander did not do as Aristotle advised
play the part of a leader to the Greeks and of a master to the
barbarians, care for the former as friends and kinsmen, and
treat the latter as beasts or plants, and so fill his reign with
wars, banishments, and factions ; he behaved alike to all.
STRABO i. 4. 9, p. C 66. At the conclusion of his memoran
dum, Eratosthenes refuses to praise those who divided the
whole human race into two Greeks and barbarians and
advised Alexander to treat Greeks as friends, but barbarians
as enemies ; he says it is better to draw the division between
virtue and vice. . . . Alexander did not ignore his advisers
but took their advice and acted accordingly, looking to the
intention of those who had sent it.
Cic. Fin. 5. 4. ii. Aristotle and Theophrastus had, each of
them, taught what sort of man the ruler in a state should be.
I (R 2 70, R3 78)
Cic. Q. Fr. 3. 5. i. When these books were being read over
to me in my Tusculan villa in the hearing of Sallust, I was
advised by him that something much more authoritative
could be said on these matters if I were myself to speak
about the state ; especially because I was not a Heraclides
Ponticus but a man of consular rank and one versed in the
greatest affairs of state. What I put into the mouth of such
ancient authorities would be seen to be fictitious. . . . Finally,
he remarked that Aristotle himself says in his own name
what he has to say about the state and the rule of it by the
outstanding 1 man.
2 (R3 79)
SYRIAN, in Metaph. 168. 33-35. At all events Aristotle in the
second book of his Politiciis says expressly . . . The good is
the most accurate measure of all things .
3 (R 2 94-95, R3 80)
SEN. De Ira i. 3. 3. Aristotle s definition is not far removed
from ours ; he says anger is the desire to repay pain.
Ibid. i. 9. 2. Anger, Aristotle says, is necessary, nor can any
battle be won without it unless it fills the mind and kindles
the spirit. But we must treat it not as a commander but as
1 Reading praestanti, with Wesenberg.
Ibid. i. 17. i. Aristotle says certain passions serve as weapons,
if we use them aright.
Ibid. 3. 3. i. But, as I have said in former books, Aristotle
stands as the defender of anger and forbids the expulsion of
it from our nature. He says it is the spur to virtue, and if it
is taken from us the mind becomes unarmed, and too sluggish
and inert for great endeavours. . . 5. There is, then, no reason
why you should think that I am wasting time on useless
matters, and that anger is disgraceful, as though it were a
thing of doubtful repute among men, when there is someone,
a famous philosopher indeed, who assigns definite functions
to it, and invokes it as useful, and as supplying spirit for
battle, for active life, for everything that demands a certain
Ibid. i. 7. i. Is anger to be called to our aid? It has often
been useful. It raises and excites the spirits ; courage does
nothing splendid in war without it nothing unless it is in
flamed by anger, unless anger has goaded men into boldness
in face of danger. Some therefore think it best to temper
anger, not to root it out ; to reduce it to healthy proportions
by eradicating what is excessive, but to retain that without
which action would languish and the force and vigour of the
mind be relaxed.
Cic. Tusc. 4. 19. 43. What shall we say of the Peripatetic
view that those perturbations which we think should be
extirpated are not only natural, but even a useful gift of
nature ? This is what they say: First, they say much in praise
of anger ; they call it the whetstone of courage and say that,
whether it be against an enemy or against a bad citizen, the
reaction of an angry man is far more vigorous. They make
light of the petty reasonings of those whose thoughts took
this form: It is right that this battle be fought ; it is fitting
to fight for law, for liberty, for country. These thoughts,
they say, have no force unless courage is fanned into a blaze
by anger. Nor do they argue only about soldiers in battle ;
they think no strict discipline is possible without some
bitterness of anger. Finally, they think little of a speaker
unless, in defence as well as in attack, he feels the sting of
anger. Even if anger is not there, they think it must be
simulated in language and in gesture, that the speaker s
action may kindle the hearer s anger. In short, they say he
seems no man who does not know how to be angry, and what
we call mildness they call by the opprobrious name of
sluggishness. Nor, indeed, is it only this craving that they
praise for anger, as I have just denned it, is craving for
revenge they say that craving or desire in general is a most
useful gift of nature, since no one can do supremely well what
he does not desire to do. . . . 20. 45. They say that pain
itself ... is established by nature to a most useful end, in
order that in their ill-doing men should feel the suffering of
punishment, blame, and disgrace. For those who bear with
out pain disgrace and infamy seem to be granted immunity
for their sins ; it is better to suffer the gnawing of conscience.
... 46. They say the other forms of pain also have their
uses ; pity leads men to help others and relieve undeserved
suffering ; even envy and disparagement are not without use,
when one sees that one has gained less than another, or that
another has gained as much as oneself ; if anyone took from
us fear, he would take with it all diligence, which is greatest
in those who fear the laws, the magistrates, poverty, dis
grace, death, pain. In their discussions they admit that
desires must be pruned, but say that they neither can nor
need be completely uprooted, and that in almost all things
the mean is the best.
PHILOD. De Ira, p. 65. 31-66. 2 (Wilke). Some at least of the
Peripatetics, as we have previously indicated by reference
to individuals, say that those who remove anger and temper
cut outright the sinews of the soul ; that without these things
there would be neither punishment nor vengeance . . . that
men would not engage in wars without anger, which makes
them bold and takes away all shrinking and cowardice, and
makes men steadfast even to death. So, too, anger produces
the spirit of vengeance on enemies, 1 the existence of which
1 Reading in R. 84. 33-85. i TI^WPTJTIKOV TWV e xtfpwv, with Wilke.
is noble, just, privately and publicly advantageous, and
pleasant to boot.
PHILOD. Voll. Rhet. 2. 175, fr. 15. 1-6. A hare that makes its
appearance among hounds cannot escape (Aristotle says) , nor
can that which is deemed shameless and despicable survive
PAP. HERC. 1020. From these facts, they say, it follows that
wise men (as Aristotle says) cannot be deceived or err, and
do all things well.
ARIST. Poet. I454 b i5~i8. All these rules one must keep in
mind throughout, and, further, those also for such points of
stage-effect as directly depend on the art of the poet, since
in these too one may often make mistakes. Enough, however,
has been said on the subject in our published writings.
Vita Arist. Marciana p. 427. 3-7 (Rose). While he was still
young, he received the education of a free man, as is shown
by his Homeric Questions, by the edition of the Iliad which
he gave to Alexander, by the dialogue On Poets, the Poetics,
and the rhetorical treatises.
Cf. Vita Arist. vulgo (ante ps.-Ammon. in Cat.}.
Dio CHR. Or. 53. i: see p. 3 supra.
1 (R 2 59, R3 70)
DIOG. LAERT. 8. 2. 57-58 (3). In his work On Poets Aristotle
describes Empedocles as Homeric, and an artist in language,
skilled in metaphor and in the other devices of poetry; he
adds that Empedocles wrote, besides other poems, one on
Xerxes crossing of the Hellespont, and a prelude to Apollo,
but that a sister or, as Hieronymus says, a daughter
burned the prelude by accident, and the Persian poem in
tentionally, because it was unfinished. Aristotle adds, in
general terms, that he also wrote tragedies and works on
2 (R 2 60, R 3 71)
DIOG. LAERT. 8. 2. 51-52 (i). Empedocles, according to
Hippobotus, was the son of Meton son of Empedocles, and
belonged to Agrigentum. . . . Eratosthenes in his list of
ON POETS 73
Olympic winners says that Meton s father was successful in
the seventy-first Olympiad ; his authority is Aristotle. Apol-
lodorus the grammarian in his chronicles says Empedocles
was the son of Meton, and Glaucus says he went to Thurii
just after its foundation . Then a little later he says: Those
who relate that he fled from home to Syracuse and fought
with the Syracusans against the Athenians seem to me to
be completely mistaken ; for he was either no longer alive
or in extreme old age, which, however, does not seem to
have been the case. For Aristotle and also Heraclides say
he died at the age of sixty. The Empedocles who won a
horse-race in the seventy-first Olympiad was his grandfather
and namesake, so that Apollodorus indicates his date as well
as his parentage.
Cf. ibid. 8. 2. 74 (n).
3 (R 2 61, R 3 72)
DIOG. LAERT. 3. 48 (32). It is said that Zeno the Eleatic was
the first to write dialogues ; but Aristotle in the first book of
his work On Poets says it was Alexamenos of Styra or of
Teos, as Favorinus also says in his Memoirs. But Plato seems
to me, by bringing the genre to perfection, to deserve the
first prize for the invention, as well as for the beauty of his
ATH. 505 b-c. The writer who has utterly condemned the
others 1 recounts the praises of Meno; in the Republic he
banishes Homer and imitative poetry, but he himself wrote
his dialogues in an imitative way. He was not even the in
ventor of this type; for before him Alexamenos of Teos
invented this type of writing, as Nicias of Nicaea and Sotion
testify. Aristotle in his work On Poets writes thus: Are we
then to deny that the so-called mimes of Sophron, which
are not even in metre, 2 are stories and imitations, or the
dialogues of Alexamenos of Teos, which were written before 3
1 i.e. Plato.
2 Reading in R. 78. n inntrpovs omas TOVS, with Kaibel.
3 Reading in R. 78. 13 -nportpov, suggested by Kaibel.
the Socratic dialogues ? Thus the great savant Aristotle says
outright that Alexamenos wrote dialogues before Plato.
4 (R 2 62, R 3 73)
DIOG. LAERT. 3. 37 (25). Aristotle says that the genre of
Plato s dialogues lies between poetry and prose.
5 (R 2 63, R3 8l)
PROCL. in Remp. i. 42. 2 (Kroll). We must first mention and
discuss Plato s reason for not admitting poetry. . . . 10.
Secondly, what can be the reason why he specially excludes
tragedy and comedy, though these contribute to the purifica
tion of the passions, which can neither be completely re
pelled nor safely gratified to the full, but need seasonable
exercise, the achievement of which in listening to drama
saves us from being troubled by them at other times? . . .
49. 13. The second point was that the expulsion of tragedy
and comedy is paradoxical, since by means of them it is
possible to gratify the passions in due measure and, by doing
so, to have them at our service for the purpose of education,
having cured what was diseased in them. This objection,
which gave to Aristotle a great handle for criticism, and to
the defenders of these forms of poetry a starting-point for
their arguments against Plato, we shall, in continuation of
what we have already said, refute. ... 50. 17-26. We shall
agree, then, that the statesman must devise some outlets
for these passions, but not so as to intensify our leanings
towards them ; on the contrary, so as to bridle them and keep
the exercise of them within due limits ; but these forms of
poetry, which in addition to their garishness make an un
measured appeal to these passions, are far from serving the
purpose of purification ; for purification depends not on excess
but on restrained exercise, and has little likeness to the
passions which it purifies.
IAMBL. Myst. i. n (Parthey). The powers of the human
passions in us, hemmed in everywhere, wax stronger, but if
they are permitted a modest exercise, within the limits of
ON POETS 75
due proportion, they have a measured enjoyment and are
satisfied, and being thereby purified they come to a stop
in obedience to persuasion, and not to force. Therefore, both
in comedy and in tragedy, by looking at the passions of
others we stay our own passions, make them more moderate,
and purify them.
Ibid. 3. 9. This is by no means to be called an elimination, or
a purification and a cure ; for it is innate in us not as a result
of disease or superfluity or excess ; it is divine.
6 (R 2 64, R 3 74)
MACR. 5. 18. 16. That it was the custom of the Aetolians to
go to war with only one foot shod is shown by the famous
tragic writer Euripides, in whose tragedy Meleager a messen
ger is introduced describing the dress of each of the captains
who had come together to capture the boar. . . 19. In this
matter . . . we shall not fail to point out a fact known to
very few, that Euripides was criticized by Aristotle, who
maintained that this was Euripides ignorance ; the Aetolians
had not their left foot bare, but their right. That I may not
make an assertion without proving it I will quote the very
words of Aristotle in the second book 1 of his work On Poets,
where he says this about Euripides : Euripides says the sons
of Thestius went with their left foot unshod "In their left
step they were unshod of foot, while the right was shod so
that they should have one knee light". The custom of the
Aetolians is just the opposite; their left foot is shod, the
right unshod, I suppose because the leading foot should be
light but not that which remains fixed.
7 (R 2 65, R3 75)
DIOG. LAERT. 2. 5. 46. Socrates had as rivals (so Aristotle
says in the third book of his work on poetry) a certain
Antilochus of Lemnos and Antiphon the soothsayer, as
Pythagoras had Cylon of Croton; Homer while alive had
Syagrus, and when dead Xenophanes of Colophon. Hesiod
1 Reading in R. 79. 3 secundum scripsit, with Eyssenhardt.
when alive had Cecrops, and after death the aforesaid
Xenophanes; Pindar had Amphimenes 1 of Cos, Thales had
Pherecydes, Bias had Salarus of Priene, Pittacus had Anti-
menidas and Alcaeus, Anaxagoras had Sosibius, and Simo-
nides had Timocreon.
8 (R 2 66, R3 76)
Ps.-PLU. Vit. Horn. 3-4. Aristotle in the third book of his
work on poetry says that in the island of los, at the time
when Neleus the son of Codrus ruled this Ionic colony, a
certain girl who was a native of the island became pregnant
by a spirit which was one of the companions of the Muses
in the dance. When she saw the signs of her pregnancy she
was ashamed of what had happened and betook herself to
a place called Aegina. Pirates raided the place, captured the
girl, and took her to Smyrna, which was then under
the Lydians ; this they did as a favour to Maeon, who was the
king of Lydia and their friend. He fell in love with the girl
for her beauty and married her. While she was living near
the Meles the birth-pangs came upon her and she gave birth
to Homer on the bank of the river. Maeon adopted him and
brought him up as his own son, Critheis having died im
mediately after her delivery. Not long after, Maeon himself
died. Wlien the Lydians were being oppressed by the
Aeolians and had decided to leave Smyrna, and their leaders
had called on any who wished to follow them to leave the
town, Homer (still an infant) said he too wished to follow ;
for which reason he was called Homer 2 instead of Melesigenes.
When he had grown up and already become famous for
his poetry, he asked the god who were his ancestors and
whence he came, and the god replied thus : los is thy mother s
native island, which will receive thee dead; but beware of
the riddle of young men. . . . Not long after, while sail
ing to Thebes, to the festival of Kronos (this is a musical
contest which they hold), he came to los. Here he sat on a
rock and watched the fishermen sailing in, and asked them
1 Reading in R. 79. 17 AfufrifjLfvTjs, with the MSS.
2 d/XT/petV "
ON POETS 77
if they had anything. They had caught nothing, but were
picking lice off themselves, 1 and owing to the difficulty of
this chase they replied : What we caught we left ; what we
did not catch we bring with us , intimating that the lice they
had caught they had killed and left behind, and those they
had not caught they were carrying in their clothing. Homer
failed to interpret the riddle and died of discouragement.
The people of los buried him and inscribed on his tomb the
high-sounding words: Here earth covers the sacred head,
Homer, divine glorifier of heroes.
Cf. CELL. 3. n. 7 and Homeri Opera, ed. Allen, 5. 244, 247,
Rose s fr. 77 is omitted, because it seems to belong not
to the dialogue On Poets, but to the lost second book of the
1 Reading in R. 80. 22 tf>6(ipi,(o9at, with most of the MSS.
PHILOD. Piet. 7 b 4~8. ... in the third book of Aristotle s work
PRISC. LYDUS 41. 16-42. 3. Our materials have been taken
and put together from Plato s Timaeus . . . and from Aris
totle s Physics, De Caelo, De Generatione et Corruptione, and
Meteor ologica, and similarly from the De Somno and the De
Somniis, and from what he wrote in dialogue form On Philo
sophy and On the Worlds.
SIMP, in De Caelo 288. 31-289. 2: see p. 5 supra.
ASCL. in Metaph. 112. 16-19. About the first principles
(Aristotle says) we have already spoken in the Physics ; and
he promises to speak about these in Book a, 1 and to raise
and solve the problems about them in the work On Philosophy.
1 (R 2 4, R 3 I, w l)
PLU. Mor. 1118 c. Of the inscriptions at Delphi that which
was thought to be the most inspired was Know thyself ; it
was this, as Aristotle has said in his Platonic works, 2 that
induced in Socrates this mood of uncertainty and questioning.
2 (R 2 3, R 3 2, W 2)
DIOG. LAERT. 2. 5. 23 (7). Aristotle says that Socrates went
to Delphi; but also to the Isthmus, as Favorinus relates in
the first book of his Memoirs.
3 (R 2 5, R 3 3, w 3)
PORPH. apud STOB. 3. 21. 26. What and whose was the sacred
injunction at Delphi, which bids him who is to seek anything
1 Of the Metaphysics. 2 i.e. his dialogues.
ON PHILOSOPHY 79
from the god to know himself ? . . . Whether it was Phemonoe . . .
or Phanothea ... or Bias or Thales or Chilon that set it up ...
or whether we should give credence rather to Clearchus, who
says the injunction was that of the Pythian oracle and was
given to Chilon when he inquired what it was best for men to
learn ; or whether even before the time of Chilon it was al
ready inscribed in the temple that was founded after the
temple of feathers 1 and that of bronze, as Aristotle has said
in his work On Philosophy . . .
CLEM. AL. Strom, i. 14. 60. 3. The saying Know thyself
some have ascribed to Chilon, while Chameleon in his work
on the gods ascribes it to Thales, and Aristotle ascribes it
to the Pythian priestess.
4 (R 2 6, R 3 4, W 4)
CLEM. AL. Strom, i. 14. 61. i. Again, the saying Nothing in
excess! is ascribed to Chilon the Lacedaemonian. . . . Give
a pledge, and ruin waits you is cited by Cleomenes in his
work on Hesiod. . . . The Aristotelian tradition ascribes it to
Chilon, while Didymus assigns the advice to Thales.
5 (R 2 7, R3 5, w 5)
Etymol. Magn. 722. 16-17 (Sylburg) s.v. ao^iarijs. Properly
one who practises sophistry ; but Aristotle uses it of the
6 (R 2 8, 29, R 3 6, 34, w 6)
DIOG. LAERT. i Prooem. 8 (6). Aristotle in the first book of
his work On Philosophy says that the Magi are more ancient
even than the Egyptians, and that according to them there
are two first principles, a good spirit and an evil spirit, one
called Zeus and Oromasdes, the other Hades and Areimanius.
PLINY, N.H. 30. 3. The art of magic undoubtedly began with
Zoroaster in Persia, as the authorities agree. But it is not
1 Cf. Paus. 10. 5. 9 The second temple was made by bees out of wax and
quite clear whether there was only one Zoroaster, or a later
one as well. Eudoxus, who claimed it to be the most illus
trious and most beneficial of the sects of philosophy, related
that this Zoroaster lived six thousand years before the death
of Plato; Aristotle agrees.
PLU. Mor. 370 c. Of the planets, which they call the gods of
birth, the Chaldaeans describe two as beneficent, two as
maleficent, the other three as intermediate and neutral. . . .
Aristotle calls the one form, the other privation.
7 (R* 9, R 3 7, w 7)
PHILOP. in De An. 186. 14-16. Aristotle says so-called
because the poems are thought not to be the work of Orpheus ;
Aristotle himself maintains this in the books On Philosophy ;
the opinions are those of Orpheus, but it is said 1 that
Onomacritus spun them out in verse.
Cic. N.D. i. 38. 107. Aristotle says the poet Orpheus never
existed; the Pythagoreans ascribe this Orphic poem to a
certain Cercon. 2
8 (R 2 2, R 3 13, W 8)
SYNES. Calvit. Enc. 22. 85 c. ... if indeed a proverb is a wise
thing; and why should those things not be wise which
Aristotle describes as relics, saved by their conciseness and
cleverness when ancient philosophy perished in the wide
spread destruction of mankind ?
PHILOPONUS in Nicom. Isagogen i. i. Wisdom (ao<f>ia) was
so called as being a sort of clearness (adfoia) , inasmuch as it
makes all things clear. This clearness, being, as it were, some
thing light ((f>aes), has acquired its name from that of light
((f>dos, <f>a>s), because it brings hidden things to light. Since,
then, as Aristotle says, things intelligible and divine, even
if they are most clear in their own nature, seem to us dark
1 Reading in R. 26. 19 <f>aoiv, with Hayduck.
2 Reading in R. 26. 22 Cerconis, with the MSS.
ON PHILOSOPHY 81
and dim because of the mist of the body which hangs over
us, men naturally gave to the knowledge which brings these
things into the light for us the name of wisdom. But since we
use the words wisdom and wise in a general way, it must
be realized that these words are ambiguous. They have been
taken by the ancients in five ways, which Aristotle mentions
in his ten books On Philosophy. For you must know that men
perish in diverse ways both by plagues and famines and
earthquakes and wars and various diseases and by other
causes, but above all by more violent cataclysms, such as
that in the time of Deucalion is said to have been ; it was
a great cataclysm but not the greatest of all. For herdsmen
and those who have their occupation in the mountains or
the foothills are saved, while the plains and the dwellers in
them are engulfed ; so, at least, they say that Dardanus was
swept by the flood from Samothrace to what was afterwards
called Troy, and thus was saved. Those who are saved from the
water must live on the uplands, as the poet shows when he
says: First Zeus the cloud-gatherer begat Dardanus, and
he stablished Dardania, for not yet was holy Ilios built upon
the plain to be a city of mortal men, but still they dwelt on
slopes of many-fountained Ida. 1 The word still shows that
they had not yet courage to live in the plains. These survivors,
then, not having the means of sustenance, were forced by
necessity to think of useful devices the grinding of corn,
sowing, and the like and they gave the name of wisdom to
such thought, thought which discovered what was useful
with a view to the necessities of life, and the name of wise
to anyone who had had such thoughts. Again, they devised
arts, as the poet says, at the prompting of Athene arts
not limited to the necessities of life, but going on to the
production of beauty and elegance ; and this again men have
called wisdom, and its discoverer wise, as in the phrase A
wise craftsman framed it , 2 knowing well by Athene s
promptings of wisdom . 3 For, because of the excellence of the
discoveries, they ascribed the thought of these things to God.
Again, they turned their attention to politics, and invented
1 Horn. //. 20. 215-18. 2 Cf. ibid. 23. 712.
J Cf. ibid. 15. 412, Od. 16. 233.
laws, and all the things that hold a state together ; and such
thought also they called wisdom; for such were the Seven
Wise Men men who attained political virtues. Then they
went farther and proceeded to bodies themselves and the
nature that fashions them, and this they called by the
special name of natural science, and its possessors we describe
as wise in the affairs of nature. Fifthly, men applied the name
in connexion with things divine, supramundane, and com
pletely unchangeable, and called the knowledge of these
things the highest wisdom.
9 (W 9)
SEXT. EMP. Phys. 2, 45-46. Some say that movement exists,
others deny this . . . namely the followers of Parmenides and
Melissus, whom Aristotle has called immobilists 1 and non-
physical thinkers immobilists because they maintain the
immobility of being, non-physical because nature is the
source of movement, and in saying that nothing moves they
denied the existence of nature.
10 (R 2 10, R 3 8, vv 10)
PROCL. apud PHILOP. De Aet. Mundi, p. 31. 17 (Rabe). It
looks as though there were nothing in Plato that Aristotle
rejected so firmly as the theory of Ideas, not only in his
logical writings ... 20 but also in his ethical writings ... 21
and in his physical writings ... 32. i and much more in his
Metaphysics . . . 5-8 and in his dialogues, where he asseverates
most clearly that he cannot agree with this doctrine, even
if he lays himself open to the charge of opposing it from love
PLU. Mor. 1115 b-c: see p. 4 supra.
11 (R 2 II, R 3 9, W II)
SYRIAN- in Metaph. 159. 33-160. 5. Aristotle himself admits
that he has said nothing against the hypotheses of the
1 Omitting r-fjs jvoews, with some MSS. This seems to be a punning use of
the word araaituTys.
ON PHILOSOPHY 83
Platonists and quite fails to keep pace with the doctrine of the
ideal numbers, if these are different from the mathematical.
This is shown by the words in the second book of the
work On Philosophy: Thus if the Ideas are a different sort
of number, not mathematical number, we can have no under
standing of it ; for of the majority of us, at all events, who
comprehends any other number ? Thus in fact he has
addressed his refutation to the multitude who know no num
ber other than that which is composed of units, and did not
begin to grasp the thought of these divine thinkers.
ALEX. APH. in Metaph. 117. 23-118. i. Aristotle sets out the
Platonic dogma, which he has also stated in the work On
Philosophy. Wishing to reduce realities (which is what he
always means by substances ) to the first principles which
they assumed (the great and the small, which they called the
indefinite dyad), they said the first principles of length were
the short and long (the assumption being that length takes
its origin from a long and short, i.e. from a great and small,
or that every line falls under one or other of these), and that
the first principles of the plane were the narrow and wide,
which are themselves also great and small.
ARIST. De An. 404 b i6-24. In the same way Plato, in the
Timaeus, fashions the soul out of his elements ; for like, he
holds, is known by like, and things are formed out of the
principles or elements. 1 Similarly also in the work On Philo
sophy it was set forth that the Animal itself is compounded
of the Idea itself of the One together with the primary
length, breadth, and depth, everything else 2 being similarly
constituted. Again, he puts his view in yet other terms:
Mind is the monad, knowledge the dyad (because it goes
undeviatingly from one point to another), opinion the num
ber of the plane, sensation the number of the solid.
SIMP, in De An. 28. 7-9. Aristotle now applies the name On
Philosophy to his work On the Good (taken down from plato s
1 sc. so that the soul must be so too.
2 sc. the objects of its cognition.
lectures), in which he relates both the Pythagorean opinions
about reality and those of Plato.
Cf. PHILOP. in De An. 75. 34-76. i (see p. 116 infra).
Ps. -ALEX, in Metaph. 777. 16-21. The principle of the One
they did not all introduce in the same way. Some said that
the numbers themselves introduced the Forms into spatial
magnitudes, the number 2 doing so for the line, the number 3
for the plane, the number 4 for the solid (Aristotle relates
this about Plato in the work On Philosophy, and that is why
he here summarizes only briefly and concisely the theory of
the Platonists) ; while others explained the form of the
spatial magnitudes by participation in the One.
12 a (R 2 12, R 3 10, W I2fl)
SEXT. EMP. Phys. i. 20-23. Aristotle used to say that men s
thought of gods sprang from two sources the experiences
of the soul, and the phenomena of the heavens. To the first
head belonged the inspiration and prophetic power of the
soul in dreams. For when (he says) the soul is isolated in
sleep, it assumes its true nature and foresees and foretells
the future. So is it too with the soul, when at death it is
severed from the body. At all events, Aristotle accepts even
Homer as having observed this ; for Homer has represented
Patroclus, in the moment of his death, as foretelling the death
of Hector, and Hector as foretelling the end of Achilles. It
was from such events (he says) that men came to suspect
the existence of something divine, 1 of that which is in its
nature akin to the soul and of all things most full of know
ledge. But the heavenly bodies also contributed to this be
lief ; seeing by day the sun running his circular course, and
by night the well-ordered movement of the other stars, they
came to think that there is a God who is the cause of such
movement and order. Such was the belief of Aristotle.
Cic. Div. ad Brut. i. 30. 63. When, therefore, sleep has freed
the mind from the society and contact of the body, then it
1 Reading in R. 28. 13 Otiov, with Mutschmann.
ON PHILOSOPHY 85
remembers the past, discerns the present, and foresees the
future ; for the body of a sleeper lies like that of a dead man,
but his mind is active and alive . . . and so when death
approaches it is much more divine. ... 64. That dying men
have foreknowledge Posidonius confirms by the example he
adduces. . . . Another instance of this is Homer s Hector,
who when dying announces the approaching death of
12 b (R 2 13, R 3 u, w 12 b)
SEXT. EMP. MtUh.g(Phys. i) 26-27. Some men, when they come
to the unswerving and well-ordered movement of the heavenly
bodies, say that in this the thought of gods had its origin ;
for as, if one had sat on the Trojan Mount Ida and seen the
array of the Greeks approaching the plains in good order
and arrangement, horsemen first with horses and chariots,
and footmen behind , 1 such a one would certainly have come
to think that there was someone arranging such an array and
commanding the soldiers ranged under him, Nestor or some
other hero who knew how to order horses and bucklered
warriors . 2 And as one familiar with ships, as soon as he
sees from afar a ship running before the wind with all its
sails well set, knows that there is someone directing it and
steering it 3 to its appointed harbours, so those who first
looked up to heaven and saw the sun running its race from
its rising to its setting, and the orderly dances of the stars,
looked for the Craftsman of this lovely design, and surmised
that it came about not by chance but by the agency of some
mightier and imperishable nature, which was God.
13 (R 2 14, R 3 12, W 13)
Cic. N.D. 2. 37. 95-96. Great was the saying of Aristotle:
Suppose there were men who had lived always underground,
in good and well-lighted dwellings, adorned with statues and
pictures, and furnished with everything in which those who
are thought happy abound. Suppose, however, that they had
1 Horn. //. 4. 297. 2 Ibid. 2. 554.
3 Reading in R. 29. 6 Kardycav, with Mutschmann.
never gone above ground, but had learned by report and
hearsay that there is a divine authority and power. Suppose
that then, at some time, the jaws of the earth opened, and
they were able to escape and make their way from those
hidden dwellings into these regions which we inhabit. When
they suddenly saw earth and seas and sky, when they learned
the grandeur of clouds and the power of winds, when they
saw the sun and learned his grandeur and beauty and the
power shown in his filling the sky with light and making
day ; when, again, night darkened the lands and they saw
the whole sky picked out and adorned with stars, and the
varying lights of the moon as it waxes and wanes, and the
risings and settings of all these bodies, and their courses
settled and immutable to all eternity; when they saw those
things, most certainly they would have judged both that
there are gods and that these great works are the works
of gods. Thus far Aristotle.
PHILO, Leg. Alleg. 3. 32. 97-99. The earliest thinkers inquired
how we came to recognize the divine. Later, the most highly
esteemed philosophers said that it was from the world and
its parts and the powers inherent in these that we came to
grasp their cause. If one saw a house carefully furnished with
entrances, colonnades, men s quarters, women s quarters, and
all the other buildings, he would acquire an idea of the archi
tect, since he would reflect that the house could not have been
completed without the art of a craftsman ; and so too with
a city, a ship, or any structure small or great. So also if one
comes into this world as into a vast house or city, and sees
the heavens revolving in a circle and containing all things
within them, planets and un wandering stars moving uni
formly in orderly and harmonious fashion for the good of
the whole, earth occupying the midmost region, streams of
water and air in between, living things also, mortal and
immortal, varieties of plants and crops ; he will surely reason
that these things have not been framed without perfect skill,
but that there both was and is a framer of this universe
God. Those, then, who reason thus grasp God by way of his
shadow, apprehending the Craftsman through his works.
ON PHILOSOPHY 87
Cf. PHILO, De Praem. et Poen. 7. 40-46, De Spec. Leg. i. 35.
14 (R* 44, R3 14, W 14)
SEN. Q.N. 7. 30. Aristotle says excellently that we should
nowhere be more modest than in matters of religion. If we
compose ourselves before we enter temples . . . how much
more should we do this when we discuss the constellations,
the stars, and the nature of the gods, 1 to guard against
saying anything rashly and imprudently, either not knowing
it to be true or knowing it to be false !
Cf. PLU. Mor. 477 c-f.
15 (RZ 45, R3 15, w 15)
SYNESIUS, Dio. 10. 48 a. ... as Aristotle claims that those
who are being initiated into the mysteries are to be expected
not to learn anything but to suffer some change, to be put
into a certain condition, i.e. to be fitted for some purpose.
MICHAEL PSELLUS, Schol. ad Joh. Climacum (Cat. des Man.
Alch. Grecs, ed. Bidez, 1928), 6. 171. I undertook to teach
you what I have learned, not what I have experienced . . . the
one is matter for teaching, the other for mystical experience.
The first comes to men by hearing, the second comes when
reason itself has experienced illumination which Aristotle
described as mysterious and akin to the Eleusinian rites (for
in these he who was initiated into the mysteries was being
moulded, not being taught).
16 (R* 15, R 3 16, w 16)
SIMP, in De Caelo 289. 1-15. Aristotle speaks of this in the
work On Philosophy. In general, where there is a better there
is a best. Since, then, among existing things one is better
than another, there is also something that is best, which will
1 Reading in R. 31. 7-8 de sideribus, de stellis, de deorum natura disputamus,
be the divine. Now that which changes is changed either by
something else or by itself, and if by something else, either
by something better or by something worse, and if by itself,
either to something worse or through desire for something
better ; but the divine has nothing better than itself by which
it may be changed (for that other would then have been more
divine), nor on the other hand is it lawful for the better to be
affected by the worse ; besides, if it were changed by some
thing worse, it would have admitted some evil into itself, but
nothing in it is evil. On the other hand, it does not change
itself through desire for something better, since it lacks none
of its own excellences; nor again does it change itself for
the worse, since even a man does not willingly make himself
worse, nor has it anything evil such as it would have acquired
from a change to the worse. This proof, too, Aristotle took
over from the second book of Plato s Republic.
17 (R 2 16, R 3 17, w 17)
Schol. in Proverb. Salomonis, cod. Paris, gr. 174, f . 46 a. To
Aristotle belongs the following: There is either one first
principle or many. If there is one, we have what we are
looking for; if there are many, they are either ordered or
disordered. Now if they are disordered, their products are
more so, and the world is not a world but a chaos ; besides,
that which is contrary to nature belongs to that which is
by nature non-existent. If on the other hand they are ordered,
they were ordered either by themselves or by some outside
cause. But if they were ordered by themselves, they have
something common that unites them, and that is the first
18 (R 2 17, R 3 18, W 18)
PHILO, De Aet. Mundi 3. 10-11. Aristotle was surely speaking
piously and devoutly when he insisted that the world is
ungenerated and imperishable, and convicted of grave un
godliness those who maintained the opposite, who thought
that the great visible god, which contains in truth sun and
moon and the remaining pantheon of planets and unwander-
ON PHILOSOPHY 89
ing stars, is no better than the work of man s hands ; he used
to say in mockery (we are told) that in the past he had feared
lest his house be destroyed by violent winds or storms beyond
the ordinary, or by time or by lack of proper maintenance,
but that now a greater danger hung over him, from those
who by argument destroyed the whole world.
19 a (R 3 19, w 19 a)
PHILO, De Act. Mundi 5. 20-24 -The arguments which prove
the world to be ungenerated and imperishable should, out
of respect for the visible god, be given their proper precedence
and placed earlier in the discussion. To all things that admit
of being destroyed there are ordained two causes of destruc
tion, one inward, the other outward. Iron, bronze, and such
like substances you will find being destroyed from within
when rust invades and devours them like a creeping disease,
and from without when a house or a city is set on fire and
they catch fire from it and are destroyed by the fierce rush
of flame; and similarly death comes to living beings from
themselves when they fall sick, and from outside when they
have their throats cut or are stoned or burned to death
or suffer the unclean death by hanging. If the world, too, is
destroyed, it must be either by something outside or by one
of the powers in itself. Now each of these is impossible.
For there is nothing outside the world, since all things have
contributed to its completeness. For so will it be one, whole,
and ageless; one because only if something had been left
out of its composition would there be another world like the
present world ; whole because the whole of being has been
expended on it ; ageless and diseaseless because bodies caught
by disease and old age are destroyed by the violent assault
from without of heat and cold and the other contrary forces,
of which none can escape and circle round and attack the
world, since all without exception are entirely enclosed
within it. If there is anything outside, it must be a complete
void or an impassive nature which cannot suffer or do any
thing. Nor again will the world be destroyed by anything
within it firstly because the part would then be both
greater and more powerful than the whole, which is the most
incredible of all things ; for the world, wielding unsurpassable
power, directs all its parts and is directed by none ; secondly
because, there being two causes of destruction, one within
and one without, things that can suffer the one are necessarily
susceptible also to the other. The evidence? Ox and horse
and man and such-like animals, because they can be destroyed
by iron, will also perish by disease. For it is hard, nay im
possible, to find anything that is fitted to be subject to the
external cause of destruction and entirely insusceptible to
the internal. Since, then, it was shown that the world will
not be destroyed by anything without, because absolutely
nothing has been left outside, neither will it be destroyed
by anything within, because of the preceding argument to
the effect that that which is susceptible to the one cause
is also susceptible to the other.
19 b (R 3 20, w 19 b)
PHILO, DeAet. Mundi6. 28 7. 34. This may be put in another
way. Of composite bodies all that are destroyed are dissolved
into their components ; but dissolution is surely nothing but
reduction to the natural state of the parts, so that conversely
where there is composition, it has forced into an unnatural
state the parts that have come together. And indeed it
seems to be so beyond a doubt. For we men were put to
gether by borrowing little parts of the four elements, which
belong in their entirety to the whole universe earth, water,
air, and fire. Now these parts when mixed are robbed of
their natural position, the upward-travelling heat being
forced down, 1 the earthy and heavy substance being made
light and seizing in turn the upper region, which is occupied
by the earthiest of our parts, the head. The worst of bonds
is that which is fastened by violence ; this is violent and
shortlived, for it is broken sooner by those who have been
bound, because they shake off the noose through longing for
their natural movement, to which they hasten. For, as the
tragic poet says, Things born of earth return to earth,
1 Reading in R. 35. 13-14 tear cao6 flays, with Diels.
ON PHILOSOPHY 91
things born of an ethereal seed return to the pole of heaven ;
nothing that comes into being dies; one departs in one
direction, one in another, 1 and each shows its own form. 2
For all things that perish, then, this is the law and this the
rule prescribed when the parts that have come together in
the mixture have settled down they must in place of their
natural order have experienced disorder, and must move to
the opposites of their natural places, so that they seem to
be in a sense exiles, but when they are separated they turn
back to their natural sphere. Now the world has no part in
the disorder we have spoken of ; for let us consider. If the
world is perishing, its parts must now each be placed in the
region unnatural to it. But this we cannot easily suppose;
for to all the parts of the world have fallen perfect position
and harmonious arrangement, so that each, as though fond
of its own country, seeks no change to a better. For this
reason, then, was assigned to earth the midmost position,
to which 3 all earthy things, even if you throw them up,
descend. This is an indication of their natural place ; for in
that region in which a thing brought thither stays and rests,
when under no compulsion, there it has its home. Secondly,
water is spread over the earth, and air and fire have moved
from the middle to the upper region, to air falling the region
between water and fire, and to fire the highest region of all.
And so, even if you light a torch and throw it to the ground,
the flame will none the less strive against you and lighten
itself and return to the natural motion of fire. If, then, the
cause of destruction of other creatures is their unnatural
situation, 4 but in the world each of its parts is situated
according to nature and has had its proper place assigned
to it, the world may justly be called imperishable.
19 c (R 3 21, W 19 c)
PHILO, De Aet. Mundi 8. 39-43. The most conclusive argu
ment is that on which I know very many people to pride
themselves, as on something most precise and quite irrefutable.
1 Reading in R. 35. 23 irpos oAAo, with the MSS.
a Eur. fr. 836 Nauck. 3 Reading in R. 36. n t<f> 5v.
* Reading in R. 36. 20-1 ij -napa <f>v<jiv ragis TWV dAAcuv, with Cohn.
They ask, Why should God destroy the world? 1 Either
to save himself from continuing in world-making, or in order
to make another world. The former of these purposes is alien
to God ; for what befits him is to turn disorder into order,
not order into disorder ; and further, he would be admitting
into himself repentance, an affection and disease of the soul.
For he should either not have made a world at all, or else,
if he judged the work becoming to him, should have rejoiced
in the product. The second alternative deserves full examina
tion. For if instead of the present world he is to make an
other, the world he makes will be in any case either worse
or better than the present world, or like to it, and each of
these possibilities is open to objection, (i) If it is worse, its
artificer will be worse ; but the works of God are blameless,
exempt from criticism, incapable of improvement, fashioned
as they are by the most perfect art and knowledge. For, as
the saying goes, not even a woman is so lacking in good
judgement as to prefer the worse 2 when the better is avail
able ; 3 and it is befitting for God to give shape to the shapeless
and to deck the ugliest things with marvellous beauties.
(2) If the new world is like the old, its artificer will have
laboured in vain, differing in nothing from mere children,
who often, when they make sand-castles on the shore, build
them up and then pull them down. It were far better, instead
of making a new world like the old, neither to take away nor
to add anything, nor change anything for better or for worse,
but to leave the original world in its place. (3) If he is to
make a better world, the artificer himself must become
better, so that when he made the former world he must have
been more imperfect both in art and in wisdom which it is
not lawful even to suspect. For God is equal and like to him
self, admitting neither slackening towards the worse nor
intensification towards the better.
20 (R 2 18, R 3 22, W 20)
Cic. Lucullus 38. 119 (Plasberg). When your wise Stoic has
1 Reading in R. 36. 27 <j>6tpei, with Gomperz.
2 Reading in R. 37. 12 xpetov , with Meineke.
3 Reading in R. 37. 13 dpftvoTtputv naptovrwv, with Mangey.
ON PHILOSOPHY 93
said all these things to you syllable by syllable, Aristotle will
come with the golden flow of his speech, to say that the Stoic
is talking nonsense ; he will say that the world never came
into being, because there never was a new design from which
so noble a work could have taken its beginning, and that it
is so well designed in every part that no force can effect such
great movements and so great a change, no old age can come
upon the world by lapse of time, so that this beauteous
world should ever fall to pieces and perish.
LACT. hist. 2. 10. 24. If the world can perish as a whole
because it perishes in parts, it clearly has at some time come
into being ; and as fragility proclaims a beginning, so it pro
claims an end. If that is true, Aristotle could not save the
world itself from having a beginning. Now if Plato and
Epicurus wring this admission from Aristotle, then in spite
of the eloquence of Plato and Aristotle, who thought the
world would last for ever, Epicurus will force from them the
same unwilling conclusion, since it follows that the world
has also an end.
21 (R 2 19-20, R 3 23-24, W 2l)
Cic. N.D. 2. 15. 42. Since some living things have their
origin in earth, others in water, others in air, Aristotle thinks
it absurd to suppose that in that part which is fittest to
generate living things no animal should be born. Now the
stars occupy the ethereal region ; and since that region is
the least dense and is always in movement and activity, the
animal born in it must have the keenest perception and the
swiftest movement. Thus, since it is in ether that the stars
are born, it is proper that in these there should be perception
and intelligence. From which it follows that the stars must
be reckoned among the gods.
Ibid. 16. 44. Aristotle is to be praised, too, for judging that
all things that move do so either by nature or by compulsion
or by choice, and that the sun and moon and all the stars
are in movement, and that things that move by nature move
either downwards by virtue of weight or upwards by virtue
of lightness, neither of which could happen to the stars,
because their movement is in an orb or circle. Nor again can
it be said that some greater force makes the stars move
contrary to nature ; for what power can be greater ? What
remains, then, is that the movement of the stars is voluntary.
He who sees these things would be acting not only ignorantly
but also impiously if he denied that there are gods.
22 (W 22)
STOB. i. 43 = Dox. Gr. 432. 4-8. Plato and Aristotle say
there are four kinds of animals of land, of water, winged,
heavenly. For the stars too, they say, are said to be animals,
and the world itself is divine, 1 a reasonable immortal animal.
OLYMP. in Phd. 180. 22-23 (Norvin). Aristotle ascribes the
whole process of creation to the heavenly animals. 2
NEMES. De Nat. Horn. ch. 34. Aristotle ascribes the genera
tion of these to the sun and the zodiacal circle.
Cf. PLU. Mor. 908 f, PS.-GALEN, Phil. Hist. ch. 35.
23 (R Z 37, R 3 42, w 23)
OLYMP. in Phd. 200. 3-6 (Norvin). That there must even be
a whole race of men which is thus nourished is shown by the
case of the man in these parts who was nourished by the
sun s rays alone; Aristotle told about him, having himself
Ibid. 239. 19-21. If Aristotle recorded the case of a man in
this world who was sleepless and was nourished only by the
sun s rays, what must we think of things in another world ?
24 (R 2 39, R 3 48, w 24)
OLYMP. in Phd. 26. 22-27. 4 (Norvin). Proclus would have
heavenly bodies possess only sight and hearing, as Aristotle
1 Reading Myfodai Kal rov Koopov KO.VTOV fvBtov, with Diels.
* i.e. to the zodiacal animals.
ON PHILOSOPHY 95
also would; of the senses they have only these, which are
those that contribute to well-being, not those that contribute
to being, as the other senses do. The poet testifies to this,
saying: Sun, who seest all things and nearest all things 1
which implies that the heavenly bodies have only sight and
hearing. Aristotle adds that these senses, most of all, have
knowledge by way of activity rather than of passivity, and
are fitter for the unchanging heavenly bodies. Damascius,
however, holds that these bodies have also the other senses.
25 (R 2 43, R^ 47, w 25)
PLU. Mor. 1138 c-1104 b. We have shown that Plato rejected
the other forms of music not from ignorance or musical inexperi
ence but as being unbefitting to such a constitution ; we will
next show that he was skilled in music. . . . 1139 b-ii40 b. On
the theme that music is something noble, divine, and grand,
Aristotle, the pupil of Plato, says: Music is heavenly, by
nature divine, beautiful, and inspired ; having by nature four
parts, it has two means, the arithmetical and the harmonic,
and the parts of it, their extents, and their excesses one over
another, have numerical and proportionate relations; for
tunes 2 are arranged in two tetrachords. 3 These are his words.
He meant that the body of music was composed of unlike
parts ; which, however, harmonized with each other. But its
means also harmonized in arithmetical ratio ; for the highest
note, proportioned to the lowest in the ratio of 2 : i, com
pleted the octave. For music has, as we said before, a highest
note of twelve units and a lowest note of six. Paramcse,
harmonizing with hypate in the ratio of 3 : 2, has nine units,
while, as we said, mese has eight. 4 It is of these that the
fundamental musical intervals are composed the fourth,
1 Horn. //. 3. 277, Od. 12. 323.
2 Reading in R. 53. 7 /i^, with the MSS.
3 The Greeks regarded a musical scale as formed by two tetrachords,
either so that the highest note of one was identical with the lowest note ot
the other (as in EFGABbCD), or so that there was an interval of a note
between them (as in EFGA BCDE).
4 Plutarch takes account only of the fundamental notes of the scale the
base note (hypate), the fourth (mese), the fifth (paramese), and the octave
involving the ratio 4:3, the fifth, involving the ratio 3:2,
and the octave, involving the ratio 2:1. But the ratio 9 : 8
is also found, which gives the interval of a single tone. The
notes of the scale exceed, and are exceeded by, the notes, and
the intervals by the intervals, by the same excesses, both in
geometrical progression and in arithmetical. Aristotle, then,
describes them as having such values, neate exceeding mese
by the third part of itself, 1 hypate exceeded by paramese in
the same ratio, 2 so that the excesses are correlative ; the notes
exceed and are exceeded by the same fractions. Thus the
extreme notes respectively exceed and are exceeded by mese
and paramese in the same ratios, 4 : 3 and 3 : 2. 3 Such an
excess is the harmonic. 4 And neate exceeds mese and para
mese exceeds hypate by arithmetically equal fractions. 5 For
paramese is to mese as 9 : 8, neate to hypate as 2 : i, para
mese to hypate as 3 : 2, and mese to hypate as 4 : 3. Thus,
according to Aristotle, is the scale constituted in respect of
the notes and the corresponding numbers.
Both it and all its notes are, as regards their inmost nature,
constituted by the even, the odd, 6 and the even-odd. For
it is itself, as a whole, even, involving four terms, while its
parts and their ratios are even, odd, and even-odd ; neate is
even, containing twelve units, paramese odd, containing
nine, mese even, containing eight, hypate even-odd, contain
ing six. 7 Being itself thus constituted, and its notes so related
1 Reading in R. 53. 27 ai>Tijs, with Bernardakis.
2 i.e. by the third part of paramese.
3 i.e. neate : mese = paramese : hypate = 3:2, and neate : paramese =
mese : hypate = 4:3.
4 Three quantities a, b, c were described by the Greeks as forming a
harmonic progression if a = b-\ and b = c + -. 12 = 8-\ and 8 =6 + -,
n n 3 3
so that 12, 8, 6 (neate, mese, hypate) formed a harmonic progression.
5 This sentence cannot be right as it stands in the Greek ; the sense requires
in R. 54. 2-4 something like 17 8 vtari) vnepexft TTJS ^e enj? xar apiQ^rtKov
Adyov taw fiepei xai 17 -irapafjLtoT] rfjs virdrrjs. Neate, paramese, mese, and
hypate being to one another as 12, 9, 8, 6, neate exceeds mese, and paramese
exceeds hypate, by equal fractions, i.e. by a half.
6 The context seems to demand in R. 54. 9-10 the reading * re rfjs a/mar
Kal irfpiaa-ijs, which was proposed by Volkmann.
7 12 is said to be even but 6 to be even-odd, because even-odd* was
applied, and confined, to numbers whose halves are odd.
ON PHILOSOPHY 97
in respect of their mutual excesses and ratios, it is as a whole
in harmony with itself and with its parts. But furthermore, of
the senses that come into being in bodies, those which are
heavenly and divine, affording by God s help and by reason
of this harmony 1 perception to men namely sight and
hearing exhibit harmony by the aid of sound and light.
And the senses that accompany them are, qua senses,
harmoniously constituted ; for it is not without harmony that
these too produce their effects ; they are lesser than sight and
hearing, but not derived from them. When God is present,
those two come into being in bodies, in accordance with
numerical principles, and their nature is both powerful and
It is clear, then, that the ancient Greeks were right in
valuing musical education most highly of all.
26 (R 2 21, R 3 26, w 26)
Cic. N.D. i. 13. 33 (speaking in the person of an Epicurean).
Aristotle, in the third book of hiswork On Philosophy, creates
much confusion through dissenting 2 from his master Plato.
For now he ascribes all divinity to mind, now he says the
world itself is a god, now he sets another god over the world
and ascribes to him the role of ruling and preserving the
movement of the world by a sort of backward rotation. Then
he says the heat of the heavens is a god, not realizing that
the heavens are part of the world, which he has himself
elsewhere called a god. But how can the divine sense-per
ception which he ascribes to the heavens be preserved in a
movement so speedy ? Where, again, are all the gods of
popular belief, if we count the heavens, too, as a god ? And
when he himself demands that God be without a body, he
deprives him of all sense-perception, and even of foresight.
Moreover, how can the world move 3 if it lacks body, and how,
if it is always moving itself, can it be calm and blessed ?
1 Reading Sid TTJV appoviav (with the MSS.) after atoOrjoiv in R. 54. 21, in
stead of in R. 54. 20.
2 Omitting non in R. 39. 19, with the MSS.
a Reading in R. 40. 2 modo mundus moveri, with the MSS.
645. 2V H
27 (w 27)
Cic. Acad. i. 7. 26. Therefore air this word 1 too we use as
a Latin word and fire and water and earth are primary;
from them spring the forms of animals and of the fruits of
the earth. Therefore these are called first principles and, to
translate from the Greek, elements; of them, air and fire
have the power of producing movement and causing change,
while the part of the others water and earth is to receive
and, as it were, to suffer. The fifth kind, from which were
derived stars and minds, Aristotle thought to be something
distinct, and unlike the four I have mentioned above.
Cic. Tusc. i. 10. 22. Aristotle, who far exceeded all others
Plato I always except both in intellect and in industry,
after taking account of the four well-known classes of first
principles from which all things were derived, considers that
there is a fifth kind of thing, from which comes mind ; for
thought, foresight, learning and teaching, discovery, the
riches of memory, love and hate, desire and fear, distress and
joy, these and their like (he thinks) cannot be included in
any of the four classes ; he adds a fifth, nameless class, and
so calls the mind itself by the new name cvSeAe^eia, as being
a continuous and endless movement.
Ibid. i. 17. 41. If the mind is either a certain number (a subtle
but not a very clear hypothesis) or the fifth nature, which is
unnamed but well understood, these beings are much more
perfect and pure, so that they move very far from the earth.
Ibid. i. 26. 65-27. 66. But if there is a fifth nature, introduced
first 2 by Aristotle, this is the nature both of gods and of
minds. 3 We, following this opinion, have expressed it in these
very words in our Consolatio : The origin of minds is not to
be found on earth ; for in minds there is nothing mixed and
composite, nothing that seems to be born and fashioned of
earth, nothing even resembling water, air, or fire. For in
1 sc. aer. 2 Reading inducta primum, haec, with the MSS.
3 Reading animorum, with the MSS.
ON PHILOSOPHY 99
these natures there is nothing that has the power of memory,
mind, and thought, that retains the past, foresees the future,
and can grasp the present which alone are living powers
nor will it ever be discovered whence these can come to man,
except from God. There is, therefore, a singular nature and
power of mind, disjoined from these customary and well-
known natures. Thus, whatever it is that feels, knows, lives,
thrives, it must be celestial and divine, and therefore eternal.
Nor can the God whom we know be otherwise understood
than as a mind apart and free, separated from all mortal
admixture, feeding and moving all things, and itself endowed
with eternal motion. Of this kind and of the same nature is
the human mind.
CLEM. ROM. Recogn. 8. 15. Aristotle introduced a fifth ele
ment, which he called o.Karov6^a.arov, i.e. unnameable, doubt
less pointing to the being who by uniting the four elements
in one made the world.
28 (w 30)
ARIST. Phys. 194*27-36. The end and the means must be
studied by the same science ; and the nature is the end (for
the terminus of a continuous process is also its final cause; 1
hence the poet s 2 absurd remark, He has the end for which he
was born , 3 which is absurd because not every final point
but only that which is best is a final cause). Indeed, some arts
make their matter and others make it workable, and we use
their matter as existing for our own sake (for we are the
end, in one of the two senses we have distinguished in
the work On Philosophy).
1 Reading tori n WAoj, TOVTO TO taxarov Ka.1 TO ov eve*ra.
1 An unidentified comic poet (Kock, Com. Alt. Fr. iii, p. 493).
3 i.e. death.
Cic. Rep. 3. 8. 12. The other writer 1 filled four huge books
with his views on justice itself.
1 (R 2 71, R3 82)
DEMETR. Eloc. 28. Neither in passages meant to rouse terror,
then, as I have shown, nor in passages of pathos or moral
reflection, is the use of words of similar ending serviceable ;
for pathos wants to be simple and unforced, and so does
moral reflection. At all events in Aristotle s work On Justice,
if the speaker who is bewailing the fate of Athens were to
say They took an enemy city and lost their own ; compare
their gain with their loss , he would have used the language
of pathos and pity; but if he uses the jingle They took an
enemy city and lost their own; compare the profit they
gained with the loss they sustained , by heaven he will rouse
not sympathy nor pity 2 but (as we say) smiles mixed with
tears. To use such false artifices in pathetic passages is, in
proverbial language, to play among those who mourn.
2 (R 2 73, R 3 84)
SUET. De Blasph. p. 416 (Miller) s.v. Evpvparos. A criminal,
also called Eurybates. . . . Aristotle in the first book of his
work On Justice says he was a thief who when he was caught
and put in chains and encouraged by the warders to show how
he got over walls and into houses, on being set free, fastened
spikes to his feet and took the sponges, climbed very easily,
escaped from the roof, and got away .
Cf. GREG. COR. Ad Hermog. c. 19, and SUIDAS s.v.
2 Reading in R. 87. i Kivrjod ouSe eAeov dAAa, with the MSS.
ON JUSTICE 101
3 (R* 74, R3 85)
LACT. Inst. 5. 15. Carneades, 1 in order to refute Aristotle s
and Plato s praise of justice, in his first discourse collected
all the things that used to be said in favour of justice, with
the object of disproving them, as he in fact did.
LACT. Epit. 55. A great number of philosophers, but princi
pally Plato and Aristotle, said much about justice, defending
it and bestowing the highest praise on it because it assigns
to each man what is his own and preserves equity in all
things, and maintained that while the other virtues are, so
to speak, silent and inward, it is justice alone that is not
so self-contained and hidden, but stands boldly forth in
readiness to act well for the general good.
4 (R 2 75, R 3 86)
PLU. Mor. 1040 e. Chrysippus says in criticism of Aristotle
on the subject of justice that he is not right in saying that
if pleasure is the end justice is destroyed, and with justice
each of the other virtues.
Cf. Cic. Hortensius, fr. 81 (Miiller) = AUGUST. C. lul. Pel.
4. 14. 72.
5 (R 2 7 6, R3 87)
PORPH. in De Int. apud BOETH. in De Int. ed. 2, i. i, p. 27
(Meiser). Aristotle in his work On Justice says thoughts and
sensations are from the very start distinct in their nature .
6 (R3 88)
THEM. Or. 26 d-27 b. Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school,
though he was in all other respects proud and lofty, yet was
pleased and flattered when on the strength of his discourses
the Athenians conferred citizenship on him, a stranger and
1 In Cicero s De Re Publica.
a Phoenician ; is it likely then that I was so boorish, and so
heedless of Aristotle, whom I had taken as my master both
in life and in philosophy, as to think all honour, no matter
from whom or on what ground, a thankless and mercenary
object for a good man? Do I not remember the grounds on
which Aristotle distinguishes vanity from true pride ? In dis
tinguishing them, 1 he says somewhere that with regard to
great honours, as with regard to all other things that are
called good, there is an immoderate care for them, but also
a moderate and reasonable care. He adds that the man who
is puffed up and raises his eyebrows at the noisy applause
given him by the mob because he has spent much on theatres
or horse-races for their entertainment is a vain fellow, and
is afflicted with the vice to which Aristotle gives the name of
vanity ; while the man who despises the applause and thinks
it little better than the noise of waves beating on the shore,
but values more than anything else the approval without
flattery which good men bestow on virtue, he is truly great
hearted and high-minded.
1 Reading in R. 89. 22 Stopi^tuv.
ALEX, in Top. 5. 17-19. Of this so-called dialectic Aristotle
has treated both in other books and particularly in these,
which are called Topics.
Ibid. 27. ii. Perhaps he would apply the phrase mental
gymnastic to a discussion which probes both sides of a
question. This type of discussion was not unusual with the
ancients. . . . 14-18. They put forward a thesis, and practised
on it their 1 inventiveness in argument, establishing and re
futing 2 the thesis by probable arguments. There are books
both of Aristotle and of Theophrastus containing such argu
ments from probable premisses to opposite conclusions.
Cf. ELIAS in Cat. 133. 9-17.
THEON, Prog. 2, p. 165. Examples of training in theses may
be got both from Aristotle and from Theophrastus; there
are many books of theses bearing their names.
1 Reading in R. 105. 8 avr&v, with Wallies.
2 Reading in R. 105. 9 KaraaKfvd^ovres Tf Kai dvaoKfudfrvrts, with the MSS.
I (R 1 ICQ, R 2 112)
ALEX, in Top. 62. 30. One might consider in which class of
problems one should include such problems as Why does
the magnetic stone attract iron ? , or What is the nature of
prophetic waters ? These do not seem to fall under any of
the recognized kinds. Is it that these are not dialectical
problems at all, such as those which we are discussing and
whose kinds we are distinguishing? ... 63. 11-19. Are these
not physical problems, as Aristotle has said in his work On
Problems ? Physical phenomena whose causes are unknown
constitute physical problems. Still, there are dialectical
problems even about physical matters, as there are about
ethical and logical matters ; those of one kind are dialectical,
those of another physical. All dialectical problems will be
reducible to the inquiry whether the connexion of an attri
bute with a thing is a fact, and the inquiry whether a thing
exists, which are two of the four questions enumerated at the
beginning of the second book of the Posterior Analytics ; l for
the questions What is the reason of a connexion ? and What
is the nature of a thing? are not dialectical problems.
1 Ch. i.
1 (R 2 1 10, R 3 113)
ALEX, in Top. 242. 1-9. Moreover, what is itself nobler and
more precious and praiseworthy is more desirable than what
is less so. Aristotle here uses the phrases nobler , more
precious , more praiseworthy in a wide sense. In the
division of goods he reserves the word precious for the more
primary good things, such as gods, ancestors, happiness, the
words noble and praiseworthy for the virtues and vir
tuous activities, the word capacities for those things which
may be used well or ill, the word useful for what produces
these same goods or contributes towards them. But here he
seems to apply the words noble , praiseworthy , and
precious even to things that are good as capacities.
2 (R 2 in, R 3 114)
DIOG. LAERT. 3. 80 (45). Plato, according to Aristotle, used
to divide things in this way: of goods some are in the soul,
some in the body, some external. For example, justice,
wisdom, courage, temperance, and the like are in the soul,
beauty, good condition, health, and strength in the body ;
friends, the happiness of one s country, and wealth fall among
external goods. . . . 107 (74). Of existing things some exist
in their own right, others are relative. . . . 109 (74). It was
thus that, according to Aristotle, Plato classified primary
things as well.
3 (R 2 112, R 3 115)
COD. MARC. 257, f. 250. Aristotle s Divisions. The soul is
divided into three elements.
SIMP, in Cat. 65. 4. In the Divisions . . . 7-8 after putting
forward the categories he adds: I mean these with their
cases (i.e. inflexions).
i (R 2 113, R 3 116)
SIMP, in Cat. 64. 18-65. 10. But why, say the followers of
Lucius, did he omit the conjunctions, if these too are signifi
cant utterances ? . . . They also ask where the articles are to
be placed. The same account must be given of these. These
words also are, as it were, conjunctions which in addition
indicate indefinitely the male and the female sexes ; for they
do not show the essence of anything which is why some
people call them indefinite. But where are negations, priva
tions, and the various inflexions of verbs to be placed ? This
question Aristotle himself answered in his Dissertations. For
both in his works on method, in his Dissertations, in his
Divisions, and in another dissertation called Fallacies de
pending on Language (which, even if it is thought by some
not to be a genuine work of Aristotle, is at all events the
work of some member of the school) in all of these, after
putting forward 1 the categories, he adds, I mean these with
their cases (i.e. inflexions), thus connecting the theory of
them with that of negations, privations, and indefinite terms.
DEXIPPUS, in Cat. 33. 8-13. But where, they say, are nega
tions, privations, and indefinite terms, and the inflexions
answering to each category, to be placed ? Aristotle himself
dealt better with this matter in his Dissertations ; he put for
ward the categories, with their cases and with negations
and indefinite terms, and thus connected together the theory
of all these things ; by cases he meant inflexions.
1 Reading in R. 108. 3 irpoOfls, with Kalbfleisch.
Ps.-AMM. in Cat. (Ven. 1546), f. 13 a. Indeed, they say that
in the Great Library there have been found forty books of
Analytics and two of Categories , it was judged by the com
mentators that of the Categories this one was a genuine work
of Aristotle. . . . This judgement was based on the thoughts
expressed, on the language, and on the fact that the Philo
sopher has in his other treatises always mentioned this book.
Cf. ELIAS, in Cat. 133. 9-17.
I (R 2 114, R 3 117)
SIMP, in Cat. 18. 16-21. Adrastus, in his work on the order of
Aristotle s treatises, relates that another book of Categories
is referred to as being by Aristotle itself short and concise
in its language and differing little from the other Categories,
but starting with the words Of existing things, some are.
He records that both versions had the same number of lines,
so that he used the word short with reference to the style,
implying that each of the proofs was set out concisely.
AMMON. in Cat. 13. 20-25. It should be known that in the
old libraries forty books of Analytics have been found, but
only two of Categories. One began 1 Of existing things, some
are called homonymous, others synonymous . The other,
which we now have lying before us, had this introduction :
Those things are called homonymous which have only their
names in common, their definitions being different. 2 This
version has been preferred as being superior in order and in
matter, and as everywhere proclaiming Aristotle as its
1 Omitting rrjv . . . fam in R. 108. 28, with Busse.
2 This is almost identical with the beginning of the Categories which have
come down to us.
Cf. PS.-AMMON. in Cat. (Yen. 1546), f. 17 a, and Schol. in
ARIST. Cat. 33 b 25-33 (Brandis).
BOETH. in Cat. i. p. 161 d-i62 a (Migne). The book is the work
of Aristotle and of no other, since in his whole philosophy he
consistently maintains the doctrine of this work, and its
brevity and subtlety are not unworthy of Aristotle . . .
though there exists another work of Aristotle discussing the
same topics, containing much the same comments, while
differently expressed. But this book has been generally
regarded as the authentic one.
ARIST. Metaph. ioo3 b 33-ioo4"2. There must be exactly as
many species of being as of unity. To investigate the nature
of these is the work of a science that is generically one I
mean, for instance, the discussion of the same, the similar,
and the other concepts of this sort ; and nearly all contraries
may be referred to this origin ; let us take them as having
been investigated in the Selection of Contraries.
Ibid. io54 a 29-32. To the One belong (as we indicated graphi
cally in our distinction of the contraries) the same, the like,
and the equal, and to plurality belong the other, the unlike,
and the unequal.
ALEX, in Metaph. 250. 17-19: see p. 122 infra.
SYR. in Metaph. 61. 12-17. The same, the like, the equal,
the straight, and in general the terms on the better side of the
list of cognates, are differentiae and as it were species of the
One, as the terms on the worse side belong to the Many. The
Philosopher himself treated of the subject separately, making
a selection of all contraries and classing some under the One,
others under the Many.
Cf. Asc. in Metaph. 237. 11-13 (P- 122 infra).
SIMP, in Cat. 382. 7-10. Aristotle seems to have taken what
he says about contraries from the Archytean book entitled
On Contraries, which he did not group with his discussion of
genera, but thought worthy of a separate treatise.
Ibid. 407. 15. Now that Aristotle s account of the difference
between opposites has been completed, it would be well to
quote Archytas discussion of them .... 19-20. For anyone
who had examined Aristotle s book On Contraries could not
have neglected Archytas book.
I (R 2 115, R 3 118)
SIMP, in Cat. 387. 17. But now that the language of Aristotle
has been clarified, let us see what the more famous inter
preters make of the passage. The Stoics pride themselves
on their working out of logical problems, and in the matter
of contraries, as well as in all other matters, they are anxious
to show that Aristotle furnished the starting-point for every
thing in one book which he called On Opposites, in which, too,
there is an immense number of problems set forth ; of which
they have set out a small portion. The others of these it
would not be reasonable to include in an introduction, but
those which the Stoics set out in agreement with Aristotle
must be mentioned. Aristotle laid down an ancient definition
of contraries, which we have mentioned previously, viz. that
they are the things which differ most from one another
within a genus ; but in his work on opposites Aristotle sub
jected this definition to all manner of tests, and amended
it. He raised the question whether things that differ 1 are
contraries, and whether difference can be contrariety, and
whether 2 complete divergence is maximum difference, and
whether the things that are farthest apart are identical with
those that differ most, and what distance is 3 and how we are
to understand maximum distance. These difficulties having
been observed, something (he maintained) must be added to
the phrase the genus , so that the definition comes to be
the things that are farthest apart in the same genus . He
pointed out the difficulties consequent on this ; he asked
whether contrariety is otherness, 4 and whether the things
that are most different are contraries, and added many other
criticisms. . . . 388. 13-14. This is but a small part of the
difficulties raised by Aristotle in his work on contrarieties.
1 Omitting the second *ai in R. no. 9, with Hayduck.
2 Reading in R. no. 10 SiWrcu, *cu i, with the MSS.
3 Reading in R. no. 13 >cai ris 17 dnoaraais, with the MSS.
4 Reading in R. no. 16 el trepans tariv, with Brandis.
ON CONTRARIES in
2 (R 2 Il6, R 3 119)
SIMP, in Cat. 388. 21. The Stoics used all these distinctions,
and in the other distinctions with regard to contraries they
followed in Aristotle s steps; he had given them in his
treatise on opposites the starting-points which they followed
out in their own books. . . . 389. 4-10. Such being the Stoic
teaching, let us see how they distorted the Aristotelian tradi
tion. Aristotle in his book on opposites says that justice is
contrary to injustice, but that the just man is said not to be
contrary, but to be contrariwise disposed, to the unjust man.
If even such things as these are contraries, he says, contrary
will be used in two senses ; it will be applied either with
reference to contraries themselves, like virtue and vice,
movement and rest, or to things by virtue of a sharing in
contraries, e.g. to that which moves and that which rests,
or to the good and the bad.
3 (R 2 117, R 3 120)
SIMP, in Cat. 389. 25-390. 7. For this reason Chrysippus says
that wisdom is contrary to folly, but that the definition of
the one is not contrary in the same way to the definition of
the other; 1 still, connecting the definitions with the things
defined, they oppose the definitions also one to one. This
distinction was first drawn by Aristotle, who held that a
simple term is not contrary to the definition of its contrary,
e.g. that wisdom is not contrary to ignorance of things good,
evil, and neutral; but that, if there is contrariety here at
all, definition is to be opposed to definition, and that the
definitions should be said to be contrary only by being
definitions of contrary things. He elaborates further on this,
by saying that a definition is contrary to a definition if their
subjects are contrary in genus or in differentiae or in both ;
e.g. let the definition of beauty be mutual symmetry of
parts ; mutual asymmetry of parts is contrary to this,
and the contrariety is in respect of the genus ; but in other
1 i.e. knowledge of things good, things evil, and things neutral, to ignorance
of the same.
cases it is by virtue of differentiae ; e.g. white is colour that
pierces the sight, black is colour that compresses it ; in these
the genus is the same, but there is contrariety in respect of
the differentiae. We have stated, then, how definition is
contrary to definition, and 1 how definitions that elucidate
essence can be contrary. Let this discussion of the matter
4 (R 2 118, R 3 121)
SIMP, in Cat. 390. 19-25. Aristotle himself in his book on
opposites considered whether, if someone who has lost one
of two things does not of necessity gain the other, there must
be a mean between the two, or this is not in all cases so. A
man who has lost a true opinion does not necessarily acquire
a false one, nor does he who has lost a false opinion necessarily
acquire a true one ; sometimes he passes from one opinion
either to a complete absence of opinion or to knowledge ; but
there is nothing between true and false opinion except
ignorance and knowledge.
5 (R 2 119-20, R 3 122-3)
SIMP, in Cat. 402. 26. Nicostratus paradoxically takes his
start from privations due to custom, and says that privation
can always change into positive state. ... 30. But Aristotle
took his distinction between state and privation not from
those due to custom but from those that are natural, to
which the antithesis of state and privation is primarily
applied. Let us use against Nicostratus the very arguments
of Aristotle. In his book on opposites he himself says that
some privations are privations of natural states, others of
customary states, others of possessions, others of other
things blindness a privation of a natural state, nakedness
a privation of a customary state, loss of money a privation
of something acquired in practice. There are several other
types of privation, and some it is impossible, others it is
possible, to lose. . . . 403. 5-24. But the full account of
privations we can get both from Aristotle s book and from
1 Reading in R. in. 29 Kal ol.
ON CONTRARIES 113
that of Chrysippus; lamblichus has added some remarks
which run as follows: "State" has several meanings, as we
have already shown, and "privation" extends to all the
meanings of "state", but not to all contraries. For privation
is equivalent to loss, so that we cannot talk of privation of
evil, since there cannot be a loss of what is evil or harmful,
but only of what is good or useful ; for a man relieved from
disease or poverty would not be said to have been deprived
of disease or poverty, though one bereft of health or wealth
would be said to have been deprived. Blindness is privation
of a good, for sight is a good ; nakedness is privation of some
thing indifferent, since raiment is indifferent, neither a good
nor an evil. Thus no privation is a good ; privation is either
an evil or indifferent. There can be privation either of all
or of most goods. Aristotle says that of all goods it is those
that are in the soul and depend on choice that we can least
be deprived of; for no one says he has been deprived of
justice, and he who said "No one takes away knowledge"
was expressing the same thought. Privations, then, are
rather of wealth, reputation, honour, and the like, and most
of all of the so-called goods of property; that is why pity
and condolence attend on most privations. But here 1 Aris
totle has stated the opposition between natural privations
and privations of the contraries. 2 So much for this subject.
6 (R 2 121, R 3 124)
SIMP, in Cat. 409. 15. Aristotle adds this to what he has said
about contraries ... 17 that the contrary of a good is always
an evil, but the contrary of an evil is sometimes a good and
sometimes an evil. . . . 30. In the book on opposites he added
to these types of contrariety that of things neither good nor
evil to things neither good nor evil, saying that white is thus
contrary to black, sweet to bitter, high to low in sound, rest
to movement. . . . 410. 25-30. Nicostratus urges, as one
criticism, that Aristotle s division of contraries is incom
plete, since he did not add that indifferent can be opposed
1 i.e. in the Categories.
2 i.e. of things contrary to the things which natural privations are priva
R45 20 I
u 4 FRAGMENTS
to indifferent. Aristotle added this in the book on opposites,
saying that there is a type of opposition between two things
neither good nor evil as we have said before. But he did
not call them indifferent, the reason being 1 (I suppose) that
the term indifferent was later, being invented by the Stoics.
1 Reading in R. 114. 9 Sidrt, with some MS. support.
ON THE GOOD
ARISTOX. Harm. 2. 30. 16-31. 3 (Macran). This, as Aristotle
always used to say, was the experience of most of those who
heard Plato s lecture On the Good. Each of them attended
on the assumption that he would gain one of the recognized
human goods, such as wealth, health, strength in general,
some marvellous happiness. When Plato s discourses turned
out to be about mathematics numbers, geometry, astro
nomy and, to crown all, about the thesis that there is one
Good, it seemed to them, I fancy, something quite paradoxi
cal; and so some people despised the whole thing, while
others criticized it.
ARIST. Ph. 209 b n-i6. This is why Plato in the Timaeus
says that matter and space are the same ; for the participant
and space are identical. It is true, indeed, that the account
he gives there of the participant is different from what he
says in his so-called unwritten doctrines . Nevertheless, he
did identify place and space.
THEM, in Ph. 106. 21-23. Yet in the Timaeus Plato says that
matter receives the Forms in one way, and in the unwritten
doctrines says it receives them in another way; in the
Timaeus he says it is by participation, in the unwritten
doctrines by assimilation.
PHILOP. in Ph. 521. 9-15. . . . i.e. naming matter differently
in the Timaeus and in the unwritten doctrines, i.e. in the
unwritten lectures; for in the unwritten lectures he called
matter great and small (as Aristotle said previously ; we
have stated why matter is great and small), but in the
Timaeus he calls matter the participant because it parti
cipates in the Forms. Aristotle himself copied out Plato s
SIMP, in Ph. 503. 10-15. Having shown that the infinite is
enclosed rather than encloses, and is by its own nature un
knowable, Aristotle criticizes the superficial interpretation of
Plato s words. Plato in his account of the Good called matter
(which he said was indefinite) the great and the small, and
said that all sensible things are enclosed by the infinite,
and are unknowable because their nature involves matter and
is indefinite and in a state of flux.
Ibid. 542. 9-12. Aristotle says that Plato gives matter
different names in the Timaeus and in the unwritten lectures ;
in the Timaeus he calls it the participant (for it participates
most obscurely in the intelligible ), but in the unwritten
lectures he called it great and small.
Cf. ibid. 545. 23-25, PHILOP. in Ph. 515. 29-32.
ARIST. De An. 4O4 b i6-2i: see p. 83 supra.
PHILOP. in De An. 75. 34-76. i. By the books On Philosophy
Aristotle means the work entitled On the Good 1 ; in this
Aristotle reports Plato s unwritten lectures; the work is
genuine. He relates there the view of Plato and the Pytha
goreans about realities and first principles.
Cf. SIMP, in De An. 28. 7-9, p. 83 supra.
Asc. in Metaph. 77. 2-4. Yet we say there are no Ideas of
evil things ; for evil things have no substantial existence but
are incidental, as is said in the Platonic lectures.
I (R 2 22, R 3 27)
Vita Arist. Marciana, p. 433. 10-15 (Rose). Aristotle s
character was remarkable for its moderation ; he says in the
Categories that one should not express an opinion hastily,
1 Philoponus is mistaken; Aristotle means what he says.
ON THE GOOD 117
but only after repeated consideration, and indeed that even
the mere examination of difficulties has its uses ; and in the
work On the Good he says not only he who is in luck but also
he who offers a proof should remember that he is but a man .
2 (R 2 23, R 3 28)
ALEX, in Metaph. 55. 20-57. 2 $- Both Plato and the Pytha
goreans assumed numbers to be the first principles of existing
things, because they thought that it is that which is primary
and incomposite that is a first principle, and that planes are
prior to bodies (for that which is simpler than another and
not destroyed with it is prior to it by nature), and on the
same principle lines are prior to planes, and points (which
the mathematicians call semeia but they called units) to
lines, being completely incomposite and having nothing prior
to them ; but units are numbers ; therefore numbers are the
first of existing things. And since Forms or Ideas are prior
to the things which according to Plato have their being in
relation to them and derive their being from them (the exis
tence of these he tried in several ways to establish), he called
the Forms numbers. For if that which is one in kind is prior
to the things that exist only in relation to it, 1 and nothing
is prior to number, the Forms are numbers. This is the
reason why he called the first principles of number first
principles of the Forms, and the One the first principle of
Again, the Forms are the first principles of all other things,
and since the Ideas are numbers the first principles of number
are first principles of the Ideas ; and he used to say that the
first principles of number are the unit and the dyad. For,
since there are in numbers both the One and that which is
other than the One (i.e. the many and few), he assumed
that the first thing there is in numbers, apart from the One,
is the first principle both of the many and of the few. Now
the dyad is the first thing apart from the One, having in
itself both manyness and fewness; for the double is many
and the half is few, and these exist in the dyad ; and the dyad
1 Reading irpos avro orrotv.
is contrary to the One, since the latter is indivisible and the
former is divided.
Again, thinking that he was proving that the equal and
the unequal are first principles of all things, both of things
that exist in their own right and of opposites (for he tried
to reduce all things to these as their simplest elements), he
assigned equality to the monad, and inequality to excess and
defect ; for inequality involves two things, a great and a
small, which are respectively excessive and defective. This
is why he called it the indefinite dyad because neither
the excessive nor the defective is, as such, definite ; they are
indefinite and unlimited. But when limited by the One the
indefinite dyad, he says, becomes the numerical dyad; for
this kind of dyad is one in form.
Again, the dyad is the first number ; its first principles are
the excessive and the defective, since it is in the dyad that
the double and the half are first found ; for while the double
and the half are respectively excessive and defective, the
excessive and the defective are not necessarily double and
half ; so that these are elements in the double. And since the
excessive and the defective when they have been limited
become double and half (for these are no longer unlimited,
nor is the threefold and the third part, or the fourfold and
the quarter, or anything else that already has its excess
limited), and this limitation is effected by the nature of the
One (for each thing is one in so far as it is a this and is
limited), the One and the great and the small must be
elements in the numerical dyad. But the dyad is the first
number. These, then, are the elements in the dyad. It is
for some such reasons that Plato used to treat the One and
the dyad as the first principles both of numbers and of all
existing things, as Aristotle says in his work On the Good.
Aristotle says here 1 that it is for this reason also that Plato
made one of his first principles a dyad because the num
bers, with the exception of the first numbers, are neatly
produced from it as from a matrix. This is because he thinks
the dyad divides everything to which it is applied ; that is
why he called it duplicative. For, by making into two each
1 i.e. in the Metaphysics.
ON THE GOOD 119
of the things to which it is applied, it in a sense divides it,
not allowing it to remain what it was ; which division is the
genesis of numbers. As matrices and moulds make all the
things fitted into them to be like, so too the dyad, being as
it were a matrix for the successive numbers, becomes genera
tive of them, making two of, or doubling, everything to
which it is applied. For when applied to I it makes 2 (for
twice i is 2), when applied to 2 it makes 4 (for twice 2 is 4),
when applied to 3 it makes 6 (for twice 3 is 6), and so too
in every other case.
By except the first numbers Aristotle means except the
odd numbers . For the genesis of odd numbers does not take
place in this way by doubling or by division into two. Here,
then, he means by first numbers all the odd numbers with
out exception ; for these are usually treated as prior to even
numbers. By first numbers simply is meant numbers
divided only by the unit, e.g. 3, 5, and 7 (though 2 also has
this characteristic) ; by numbers first relatively to one an
other those that have i as their only common factor, though
they are themselves measurable also by some number. 8 and
9 are so related, for i is their only common measure, though
each of them has also a number as a factor ; 8 has 2 and 4 ;
9 has 3. Here, however, Aristotle must mean by first all
the odd numbers, as being prior to the even ; for none of
them is generated by the dyad in the aforesaid way; it is
by the addition of a unit to each of the even numbers that
the odd numbers are produced a unit which is not the One
that acts as first principle (for this was a formative and not
a material principle), but as the great and the small when
limited by the One became 2, so each of the two when limited
by the One is said to be a unit.
Cf. ALEX, apud SIMP, in Ph. 454. 19-455. n.
ALEX, in Metaph. 85. 16-18. The first principles are the One
and the indefinite dyad, as he has said shortly before and
has himself related in the work On the Good.
SIMP, in Ph. 151. 6-19. Alexander says: According to Plato
the first principles 1 of all things, and of the Ideas themselves,
are the One and the indefinite dyad, which he used to call
great and small, as Aristotle relates in his work On the Good.
One might gather this also from Speusippus and Xenocrates
and the others who were present at Plato s lecture on the
Good ; for they all wrote down and preserved his doctrine,
and they say he used these as first principles. That Plato
should call the One and the indefinite dyad first principles
of all things is very natural (for the account is a Pythagorean
one, and Plato in many respects clearly follows the Pytha
goreans) ; but to call the indefinite dyad, i.e. the great and
small, first principles even of the Ideas, indicating by these
phrases matter, how can this be consistent, when Plato limits
matter to the sensible world and says clearly in the Timaeus
that it is confined to becoming, and that in it that which comes
to be comes to be ? Besides, he used to say that the Ideas
are known by thought, but that matter is credible only to
bastard reasoning .
Ibid. 453. 25-454. 19. They say that Plato maintained that
the One and the indefinite dyad were the first principles of
sensible things as well. He placed the indefinite dyad also
in the objects of intelligence and used to call it indeter
minate , and he made the great and the small first principles
and called them indeterminate, in his lectures on the Good ;
Aristotle, Heraclides, Hestiaeus, and other associates of
Plato attended these and wrote them down in the enigmatic
style in which they were delivered. Porphyry, undertaking
to put them into articulate shape, has written as follows
about them in his Philebus: The Master assumes the more
and the less, and the more and the less intense, to fall under
the heading of the indefinite. For where these are present,
alternately intensified and relaxed, that which shares in them
does not stand still and come to an end, but goes on towards
the indefiniteness of infinity. So too with the greater and the
smaller, and with Plato s equivalent for them, the great and
the small. For let there be a limited magnitude such as a
cubit. Let it be bisected and let us leave one half-cubit
1 Reading in R. 41. 9 apxcu, with Diels.
ON THE GOOD 121
undivided, but let us cut up the other half-cubit and add it
little by little to the undivided part ; the cubit will then have
two parts, one advancing without end to the less and the
other to the greater. For we should never in our cutting come
to an indivisible part, since the cubit is a continuum, and a
continuum is divided into ever divisible parts. Such an un
interrupted process of cutting shows that there is a certain
character of indefmiteness enclosed in the cubit, or rather
more than one, the one proceeding towards the great and
the other towards the small. In this example the indefinite
dyad, also, is seen to be composed of the unit in the direction
of the great and that in the direction of the small. And these
belong both to continuous bodies and to numbers ; for 2 is
the first even number, and in the nature of the even are
included both the double and the half the double involving
excess, and the half deficiency. So there are excess and
deficiency in even number. Now the first even number is 2 ;
it is in itself indefinite, but was limited by sharing in the
One ; for 2 is limited in so far as it is a single form. Thus
the One and the dyad are the elements of numbers as well,
the one limiting and giving form, the other indefinite and
involving excess and deficiency. This is almost word for word
what Porphyry said, in fulfilment of his promise to explain
what was said obscurely in Plato s lecture on the Good ; he
presumably added that these views were in accordance with
what had been written in the Philebus.
3 (R 2 24, R 3 29)
SEXT. EMP. Geom. 57. But Aristotle, at least, says . . . that
the length without breadth of which the geometers speak is
not unintelligible, but that we can without any difficulty
arrive at the thought of it. He rests his argument on a rather
clear and indeed a manifest illustration. We grasp the length
of a wall, he says, without attending also to its breadth, so
that it must be possible to conceive of the length without
breadth of which geometers speak.
Cf. SEXT. EMP. Phys. i. 412.
4 (R 2 25, R 3 30)
ALEX. APHR. in Metaph. 59. 28-60. 2. One might ask how
it is that, though Plato mentions both an efficient cause
(where he says The maker and father of the universe it were
a task to find and declare 1 ), and also the final cause (where
he says Everything exists in relation to the king of all things
and for his sake ), 2 Aristotle mentions neither of these
causes in his account of Plato s doctrines. Is it because Plato
mentioned neither of these in what he said about causes (as
Aristotle has shown in his book On the Good], or because
Plato does not treat these as causes of things that come into
being and perish, and did not even work out any theory
about them ?
5 (R 2 26, R 3 31)
ALEX, in Metaph. 250. 17-20. For the proof that practically
all contraries are referred to the One and plurality as their
first principle, Aristotle sends us to the Selection of Con
traries, where he has treated expressly of the subject. He has
spoken about this selection also in the second book On the
Cf. ibid. 262. 18-26.
Asc. in Metaph. 237. 11-14. For the information that almost
all contraries are reducible to the One and Plurality as to
their first principles, Aristotle refers to the Selection of Con
traries. He has spoken of the selection also in the second
book On the Good.
Cf. ibid. 247. 17-19.
Ps.-ALEX. in Metaph. 615. 14-17. Aristotle has made a dis
tinction in his book On the Good ... by which he reduced all
contraries to Plurality and the One. To the One belong the
same, like, and equal, to Plurality others, unlike, and unequal.
Cf. ibid. 642. 38-643. 3, 695. 23-26.
1 Tim. 28 c. 2 Ep. 2. 312 e.
ON THE GOOD 123
Asc. in Metaph. 79. 7-10. The Platonists are more, and indeed
most, zealous for the existence of the first principles; for in
their eyes these are first principles even of the Ideas them
selves. They are, as has been said a little earlier, the One and
the indefinite dyad; and Aristotle has himself stated this
in his book On the Good.
1 (R 2 180, R3 185)
SYRIAN, in Metaph. 120. 33-121. 4. That Aristotle has noth
ing more than this to say against the theory of Forms is
shown both by the first book of this treatise and by the two
books he wrote about the Forms ; for it is by borrowing
practically these same arguments everywhere, and sometimes
cutting them up and subdividing them, sometimes pro
claiming them more concisely, that he tries to correct his
predecessors in philosophy.
Ibid. 195. 10-15. These are the arguments which Aristotle
here uses against the theories of the Pythagoreans and the
Platonists; which contain also those used in book A major,
as the commentator Alexander indicated ; for which reason
we, having opposed these arguments, do not consider that
we have neglected those others nor yet those which Aris
totle has used against those thinkers in his two books on
Forms ; for there he goes the round of practically these same
Ps. -ALEX, in Metaph. 836. 34-837. 3. Aristotle sums up the
whole discussion by saying The consequences for those
who assume the existence of the ideal numbers and the
separate existence of mathematical entities, and make them
causes of physical things are those we have stated, and
yet more than these might be collected ; he refers to the
two books written by him on the Forms books different
from books M and N of the Metaphysics and falling outside
2 (R 2 l8l, R3 186)
SCHOL. ad DION. THRAC. p. 116. 13-16 (Hilgard). It must be
recognized that definitions are of things universal and
eternal, as Aristotle has said in the work On Ideas which he
ON IDEAS 125
wrote against Plato s Ideas. Particular things all change and
never remain the same; universals are unchangeable and
3 (R 2 182, R3 187)
ALEX. APHR. in Metaph. 79. 3. The Platonists used the sciences
in more than one way to establish the existence of Ideas as
Aristotle relates in the first book of his work On Ideas ; the
arguments he here seems to refer to are as follows: (i) If
every science does its work with reference to one self -identical
thing, and not to any particular thing, there must be,
corresponding to each science, something other than sensible
things, which is eternal and is the pattern for the products
of the science in question. Now that is just what the Idea is.
(2) The things of which there are sciences must exist ; now
the sciences are concerned with things other than particular
things ; for the latter are indefinite and indeterminate, while
the objects of the sciences are determinate ; therefore there
are things other than the particulars, and these are the Ideas.
(3) If medicine is the science not of this particular instance
of health, but just of health, there must be such a thing as
health-itself, and if geometry is knowledge not of this equal
and this commensurate, but of what is just equal and what
is just commensurate, there must be an equal-itself and a
commensurate-itself, and these are the Ideas.
Such arguments do not prove the point at issue, that there
are Ideas, but they do show that there are things other than
sensible particulars. It does not follow, however, that if there
are things other than particulars these are Ideas ; for besides
particulars there are universals, which we maintain to be
the objects of the sciences. Take, again, the argument that
there must be Ideas of the products of the arts, since every
art refers its products to some standard, and the objects of
the arts must exist, and must be different from particular
things. The latter argument, besides failing, like the others,
to prove the existence of Ideas, will be seen to involve Ideas
of things of which the Platonists insist that there are no
Ideas. For if, because the medical art is knowledge, not of
this particular instance of health but simply of health, there
is such a thing as health-itself, there will be a similar object
of each of the arts. For an art is concerned not with the
particular, with the this , but simply with that which is
the object of the art ; e.g. carpentry with bench simply, not
with this particular bench, with bed simply, not with this
bed ; so too are sculpture, painting, building, and each of the
other arts, related to their own objects. There will, therefore,
be an Idea of each of the objects of the arts which the
believers in the Ideas do not want. . . .
80. 8. They also use the following argument to establish
the existence of the Ideas. If each of the many men is a man,
and each of the many animals an animal, and so too in all
other cases, and these are not instances of a thing being
predicated of itself, but there is something predicated of all
men, &c., but identical with none of them, there must be
something belonging to all of them, which is separate from
the particular things and eternal; for in every case it is
predicated alike of all the numerically different examples.
But that which is one over many, separated from the many
and eternal, is an Idea ; therefore there are Ideas.
This argument, Aristotle says, involves the Platonists in
setting up Ideas even of negations and of non-existent things.
For even a negative term is predicated as a single identical
term of many subjects, and even of non-existent things, and is
not the same as any of these subjects. Not-man is predicated
both of horse and of dog and of everything except man, and
therefore is a one over many, and identical with none of the
things of which it is predicated. Again, it remains always
similarly predicable of similar things ; for not-musical is
predicable truly of many things (of all that are not musical),
and similarly not-man of all that are not men; so that
there are Ideas even of negations. Which is absurd ; for how
could there be an Idea of non-existence ? If one is to accept
such Ideas, there will be one Idea of dissimilar and wholly
different objects, e.g. of line and man; for neither of these is
a horse. Again, there will be a single Idea of an indefinite
variety of objects. Again, there will be a single Idea both of
what is primary and of what is secondary ; for both man and
ON IDEAS 127
animal are not-wood, but the one is primary, the other
secondary, and of such things the Platonists did not claim
that there are genera or Ideas. It is clear that this argument,
like the others, does not prove the existence of Ideas; it,
like the others, tends to show that that which is predicated
in common is different from the particulars of which it is
predicated. Again, the very people who wish to show that
that which is predicated of many things in common is a
single thing, and that this is an Idea, devise a proof from
negations. For if one who denies something of several things
must do so with reference to a single term if one who says
of a man and of a horse that they are not white does not deny
of each of them a separate attribute, but referring to a single
thing denies an identical whiteness of both of them then
he who affirms the same term of several things does not
affirm something different in each case. There must be some
one thing that he affirms; e.g. in predicating man he is
referring to one identical thing ; for what is true of negation
must be true of affirmation. There is, therefore, something
apart from what there is in sensible things, something that
accounts for affirmation that is true of many things and
common to them, and this is the Idea. . . .
81. 25. The argument which establishes the existence of
Ideas on the basis of the fact of knowledge is as follows: If
when we think of man or land-animal or animal, we think
of something real and at the same time not a particular
(for the same thought remains even when the particular
things have perished), clearly there is something apart from
sensible particulars, something which we apprehend both
when they exist and when they do not ; for surely we do not
then apprehend something non-existent. This is a Form or
82. ii. The argument that establishes Ideas answering
even to relative terms is as follows : When the same term is
predicated of several things not homonymously but so as to
indicate a single nature, it is predicable truly of them either
because they have in the strict sense the property indicated
by the predicate (as when we say Socrates is a man and
Plato is a man), or because they are likenesses of the true
possessors of the attribute (as when we predicate man of
men in pictures (for in these cases we refer to the likenesses
of men, indicating a nature that is identical in them all)), or
because one of them is the pattern and the others are like
nesses (as when we call both Socrates and the likenesses of
him men ). We predicate of things in this world equality
itself, which is only homonymously predicable of them ; for
neither does the same definition apply to them all, nor are
we referring to things truly equal. For a sensible thing s size
changes and varies continuously and is not determinate, nor
does anything in this world answer precisely to the definition
of equality. Nor, again, are they related as pattern and
image ; for one is not more pattern or image than another.
Even if one were to allow that an image is not merely
homonymous with its pattern, it always follows that parti
cular equal things are equal only as being images of that
which is strictly and truly equal. If this be so, there is an
equal itself, a strictly equal, by reference to which things
in this world, as being images of it, come to be, and are
said to be, equal, and this is an Idea, serving as a pat
tern to the things 1 that come into being by reference to
83. 22-30. This is the argument which according to Aris
totle implies Ideas answering even to relative terms. At all
events the proof in question has referred to equality, which
is a relative term; but the Platonists denied that there are
Ideas answering to relative terms, because for them Ideas
exist in their own right, being substances, while relative
terms have their being in their relation to one another.
Again, if what is equal is equal to what is equal to it, there
will be more than one Idea of the equal ; for the equal-itself
is equal to the equal-itself, since if it were not equal to any
thing it would not even be equal. Again, according to the
same argument there will have to be ideas even of unequals
(for where there are opposites there must be Ideas either of
both or of neither) ; but even the Platonists admit that
inequality involves more than one thing.
1 Reading napaBfiYfiariKov ov TOLS KT\.
ON IDEAS 129
4 (R 2 183, R3 188)
ALEX. APHR. in Metaph. 83. 34. The argument which intro
duces the third man was as follows: The Platonists say that
the things that are predicated universally of substances are
precisely such as they are said to be, and that these are
Ideas. 1 They say, too, that things that are like one another
are so by sharing in one identical thing, which is strictly
what it is ; and that this is the Idea. But if this be so, and if
that which is predicated of certain things in common must,
if it is not identical with any of them, be something else apart
from them (for that is why man-himself is a genus because
while predicated of particular men it was identical with none
of them), there will be a third man apart from the particular
man (e.g. Socrates or Plato), and apart from the Idea, which
is itself also numerically one. . . .
84. 21. The existence of the third man is also proved in
this way. If that which is predicated truly of several things
also exists in separation from these (this is what the believers
in Ideas think they prove; the reason why, according to
them, man-himself exists is that man is predicated truly
of the many particular men, and is other than they) if this
be so, there will be a third man. For if the man which is
predicated is different from those of whom it is predicated,
and exists independently, and man is predicated both of
particular men and of the Idea of man, there will be a third
man apart both from particular men and from the Idea.
On this basis, too, there will be a fourth man, predicated
both of the third man, of the Idea, and of the particulars;
and similarly a fifth, and so ad infinitum. This argument is
identical with the first, and follows from the assumptions
that things that are like are like by participation in some
identical thing, and that particular men and the Ideas are
like. ... 85. 9. The first exposition of the third man has
been used by others and plainly by Eudemus in his book
On Diction, and Aristotle himself has used the last in the
fourth book of his work On Ideas, and also, a little later,
in the Metaphysics. . . .
1 Reading in R. 150. 27-28 tlvai i S ay, with Asclepius.
85. 1 8. Aristotle says that these arguments, used to estab
lish the existence of Ideas, destroy these first principles ; and
with these will be destroyed the things that come after the
first principles, if indeed they proceed from the first prin
ciples ; so that the Ideas also will be destroyed. For if in the
case of all things that have a common predicate there is
something separate, the Idea, and if twoness is predicated
even of the indefinite dyad, there will be something an
Idea prior to the indefinite dyad, which will then no longer
be a first principle. But neither will duality, in its turn, be
primary, a first principle ; for of it again, as being an Idea,
number is predicable ; for the Ideas are assumed by the
Platonists to be numbers ; so that for them number will be
the first thing, being an Idea. But if this be so, number will
be prior to the indefinite dyad (which is for them a first
principle), not the dyad to number; and if so, the dyad will
no longer be a first principle, if it is what it is by sharing in
something. Again, the dyad is assumed to be a first principle
of number, but according to the argument just stated number
becomes prior to it; but if number is relative (for every
number is the number of something), and if number is the
first of existing things (since it is prior even to the dyad,
which they assumed to be a first principle), that which is
relative will be according to them prior to that which exists
in its own right. But this is absurd; for everything that is
relative is secondary. For a relative term indicates the
possession of a pre-existent nature which is prior to the
possession that occurs to it. ... 86. n. But even if one were
to say that number is a quantity and not a relation, it would
follow for the Platonists that quantity is prior to substance ;
but the great and the small themselves are relative. Again, it
follows that they must say that that which is relative is a
first principle of and prior to that which exists in its own
right, inasmuch as for them the Idea is the first principle of
substances, and the Idea s being an Idea depends on its
being a pattern, and a pattern is relative, being the pattern
for something. Again, if the being of Ideas depends on
their being patterns, the things which come into being in
relation to them, and which the Ideas are Ideas of, must be
ON IDEAS 131
copies of them, and so one might say that according to these
thinkers all natural objects turned out to be relative ; for all
are either images or patterns. Again, if the being of the Ideas
depends on their being patterns, and a pattern exists for the
sake of that which comes into being in relation to it, and that
which exists for the sake of something else is inferior to it,
the Ideas will be inferior to the things that come into being
in relation to them. . . .
87. 3. Such are the arguments which, in addition to those
previously mentioned, by means of the theory of Ideas
undermine the foundations of the theory. If that which is
predicated of certain things in common is the first principle
and Idea of them, and if first principle is predicated of all
first principles in common, and element of all elements,
there will be something that is prior to, and a first principle
of, first principles and elements ; and so there will be neither
a first principle nor an element. Again, Idea is not prior to
Idea ; for all Ideas are alike first principles. But the One-
itself and the Two-itself, Man-himself, Horse-itself, and each
of the other Ideas is for these thinkers alike an Idea ; there
fore none of them will be prior to another, and therefore none
will be a first principle ; therefore the One and the indefinite
dyad are not first principles. Again, it is paradoxical that
an Idea should derive its form from an Idea, for all Ideas are
forms; but if the One and the indefinite dyad are first
principles, one Idea will derive its form from another the
dyad itself from the One itself ; for that is how they are said
to be first principles the One as form, the dyad as matter ;
therefore these are not first principles. But if they say that
the indefinite dyad is not an Idea, then in the first place,
though it is a first principle there will be something prior
to it the dyad itself, by participation in which the indefinite
dyad is itself a dyad ; for the indefinite dyad is not the dyad
itself, since it is only by virtue of participation that dyad
will be predicated of it, as of particular pairs of things. Again,
if the Ideas are simple, they cannot be derived from two
different first principles, but the One and the indefinite dyad
are different. Again, the number of the dyads will be sur
prising, if there is first the dyad-itself, then the indefinite
dyad, then the mathematical dyad we use in counting (which
is not identical with either of the other two), and then in
addition that which exists in numerable and sensible things.
These consequences are paradoxical, so that clearly by follow
ing out the assumptions made by these thinkers about the
Ideas it is possible to destroy the first principles, which are
for them more important than the Ideas. . . .
88. 20-89. 7. Again, the argument which says that the
cause of things happening in an orderly way is their being
made after a fixed pattern, which is the Idea, applies not
only to substances. There is also the argument which starts
from what we assert truly, and maintains that this must
exist. Now in saying that there are five (or three) forms of
harmony, and three concordant intervals, we assert truly;
therefore there are just so many; but the number of such
things in the sensible world is infinite ; therefore there
are other, eternal, objects with reference to which what
we say is true. Thus this argument, also, applies not
only to substances. And there are many other such argu
5 (R 2 184, R3 189)
ALEX. APHR. in Metaph. 97. 27-98. 24. To prove that it is
not, as Eudoxus and some others thought, by the intermix
ture of Ideas that other things exist, Aristotle says it is easy
to collect many impossible conclusions that follow from this
opinion. These would be as follows: If the Ideas are mixed
with other things, (i) they will be bodies ; for it is to bodies
that mixture appertains. (2) Ideas will be contrary to one
another; for it is between contraries that mixture occurs.
(3) Mixture will take place in such a way that either an Idea
will be present whole in each of the things with which it is
mixed, or only a part of it will be present. But if it is present
whole, something that is numerically one will be present in
several things (for the Idea is numerically one) ; but if
mixture be by way of parts, it will be that which shares in
a part of man-himself , not that which shares in the whole of
ON IDEAS 133
man-himself, 1 that will be a man. (4) The Ideas would then
be divisible and partible, though they are not subject to
change. (5) The Forms must consist of like parts, if all the
things that contain a part of a certain Form are like one
another. But how can the Forms consist of like parts? A
piece of a man cannot be a man, as a piece of gold is gold.
(6) As Aristotle himself says a little later, in each thing there
will be an admixture not of one Idea but of many ; for if
there is one Idea of animal and another of man, and a man
is both an animal and a man, he will partake of both Ideas.
And the Idea man-himself, inasmuch as it is also animal, will
share in animal-itself ; but on that showing the Ideas will no
longer be simple, but composed of many components, and
some Ideas will be primary and others secondary. If on the
other hand man-himself is not animal it is surely absurd to
say that a man is not an animal. 2 (7) If the Forms are mingled
with the things that exist by reference to them, how can
they still be patterns, as these thinkers maintain ? It is not
thus, by mixture, that patterns cause the likeness of the
copies of them to them. (8) On this showing, the Ideas would
be destroyed along with the things in which they are. Nor
would they have a separate existence, but only existence in
the things which share in them. (9) On this showing, the
Ideas will no longer be exempt from change ; and there are
all the other absurd implications which Aristotle in the
second book of his work On Ideas showed this theory to
involve. This is why he said It would be easy to collect
many insuperable objections to this view ; they have been
collected in that work.
1 Reading in R. 152. 7 ov TO oAou rov avroavdpcuirov, with some MSS. and
2 sc. Yet this follows from saying that man-himself is not animal .
ON THE PYTHAGOREANS
I 1 (R 2 186, R3 191)
APOLLON. Mirab. 6. These were succeeded by Pythagoras son
of Mnesarchus, who first worked at mathematics and arith
metic, but later even indulged in miracle-mongering like that
of Pherecydes. When a ship was coming into harbour at
Metapontum laden with a cargo, and the bystanders were,
on account of the cargo, praying for her safe arrival, Pytha
goras intervened and said : Very well, you will see the ship
bearing a dead body. Again in Caulonia, according to
Aristotle, he prophesied the advent of a she-bear; and Aris
totle also, 2 in addition to much other information about him,
says that in Tuscany he killed a deadly biting serpent by
biting it himself. He also says that Pythagoras foretold to
the Pythagoreans the coming political strife ; by reason of
which he departed to Metapontum unobserved by anyone,
and while he was crossing the river Cosas he, with others,
heard the river say, with a voice beyond human strength,
Pythagoras, hail ! ; at which those present were greatly
alarmed. He once appeared both at Croton and at Meta
pontum on the same day and at the same hour. Once, while
sitting in the theatre, he rose (according to Aristotle) and
showed to those sitting there that one of his thighs was of
gold. 3 There are other surprising things told about him, but,
not wishing to play the part of mere transcribers, we will bring
our account of him to an end.
AELIAN, V .H. 2. 26. Aristotle says that Pythagoras was called
by the people of Croton the Hyperborean Apollo. The son
of Nicomachus 4 adds that Pythagoras was once seen by
many people, on the same day and at the same hour, both
1 Rose s fr. 190 is omitted because in the text of Clement RpunoTiX-qs is
only an emendation of Aptarapxos.
1 Inserting after ApiaroTtXys in R. 153. 13 irpovari^vt r^v XfVKr/v apxrov
(from Iamb. V.P. 142) Kal 6 avros ApiaroriX-qs, with Diels.
3 Reading in R. 154. i rots Kadrj^tvois tir xP vao ^ v > w i
4 i.e. Aristotle.
ON THE PYTHAGOREANS 135
at Metapontum and at Croton ; and at Olympia, during the
games, he got up in the theatre and showed that one of his
thighs was golden. The same writer says that while crossing
the Cosas he was hailed by the river, and that many people
heard him so hailed.
Ibid. 4. 17. Pythagoras used to tell people that he was born
of more than mortal seed ; for on the same day and at the
same hour he was seen (they say) 1 at Metapontum and at
Croton ; and at Olympia he showed that one of his thighs
was golden. He informed Myllias of Croton that he was
Midas the Phrygian, the son of Gordius. He fondled the
white eagle, which made no resistance. While crossing the
river Cosas he was addressed by the river, which said Hail,
DIOG. LAERT. 8. i. n (9). He is said to have been very
dignified in his bearing, and his disciples held that he was
Apollo, and came from the men of the north. There is a story
that once, when he was stripped, his thigh was seen to be
golden ; and there were many who said that the river Nessus
had hailed him as he was crossing it.
IAMB. V.P. 28. 140-3. The Pythagoreans derive their con
fidence in their views from the fact that the first to express
them 2 was no ordinary man, but God. 3 One of their traditions
relates to the question Who art thou, Pythagoras? 4 ; they
say he is the Hyperborean Apollo. This is supposed to be
evidenced by two facts: when he got up during the games
he showed a thigh of gold, and when he entertained Abaris
the Hyperborean he stole from him the arrow by which he
was guided. Abaris is said to have come from the Hyper
boreans collecting money for the temple and prophesying
pestilence ; he lived in the sacred shrines and was never seen
to drink or eat anything ; it is said, too, that in Lacedaemon
1 Reading in R. 154. 17 <f>aoi, suggested by Rose.
2 Reading in R. 155. 3 aura, with Kiessling.
3 Reading in R. 155. 4 oAA o 0(6s, with the MSS.
4 Reading in R. 155. 5 ris (i, UvBayopa ; with Dcubner.
I 3 6 FRAGMENTS
he offered preventive sacrifices, and that for this reason there
was never again a plague in Lacedaemon. From this Abaris
Pythagoras took the golden arrow without which he could
not find his way, and so made Abaris witness to his power.
At Metapontum, when certain people prayed that they
might receive the cargo of the ship that was sailing thither,
he said, Then you will have 1 a dead man ; and the ship
was found to carry a corpse. At Sybaris he seized and dis
patched the serpent that had killed the hare, and similarly
the little serpent in Tyrrhenia which killed by biting. 2 At
Croton (they say) he caressed the white eagle, which made
no resistance. When someone wanted to hear him speak, he
said he would never speak until a sign had appeared ; and
after that the white bear appeared in Caulonia. In speech
with someone who was about to announce to him the death
of his son, 3 he announced it first himself. He told Myllias of
Croton that he was Midas the son of Gordius; and Myllias
went off to the mainland to do over Midas tomb what
Pythagoras had bidden. They say, too, that the man who
bought his house and destroyed it dared tell no one what he
had seen, and for this crime was convicted at Croton of
sacrilege and put to death; he was found guilty of seizing
the golden beard which fell from Pythagoras statue. These
things and others like them are what the Pythagoreans say
in confirmation of their belief.
Cf. PORPH. V.P. 23-28.
2 (R 2 187, R 3 192)
IAMB. V.P. 6. 30. Besides, they numbered Pythagoras among
the gods, as a good spirit and a great friend to men ; some of
them identified him with the Pythian, some with the Hyper
borean, some with the Paean Apollo, and others with one
of the spirits that inhabit the moon. ... 31. Aristotle relates
in his work on the Pythagorean philosophy that the following
1 Reading in R. 155. 17 earai.
2 Reading in R. 155. 21 o<f>iv os aneKrewe, with the MSS.
3 Reading in R. 156. 2 avra> rov TOU vlov Qa.va.Tov, with Cobet.
ON THE PYTHAGOREANS 137
division was preserved by the Pythagoreans as one of their
greatest secrets that there are three kinds of rational living
creatures gods, men, and beings like Pythagoras.
3 (R 2 188, R3 193)
APUL. De Deo Soc. 20. 166-7. I believe that most of you are
reluctant to believe what I have just said, and marvel
greatly at Socrates having had a vision of a divine being.
But I suppose Aristotle is a sufficient witness to the fact that
the Pythagoreans marvelled at any town-bred person who
said he had never seen a divine being. Now if anyone can
have the power of seeing a divine apparition, why should
not such a power have fallen to the lot of Socrates, above all
CLEM. AL. Strom. 6. 6. 53. 2-3. Isidorus the son and pupil of
Basilides, in the first book of his commentary on the prophet
Parchor, says himself in so many words: The Athenians
say certain things were disclosed to Socrates by a divine
being which accompanied him; and Aristotle says all men
have divine beings which accompany them at the time of
their incarnation; this prophetic teaching he received and
set down in his books, without confessing whence he had
stolen this account.
4 (R 2 189, R 3 194)
GELL. 4. n. 11-13. Plutarch also, a scholar of great authority,
says in the first of his books on Homer that the philosopher
Aristotle had in his writings made the same statement about
the Pythagoreans, that they did not abstain from eating
animals, except for a few kinds of flesh. Since the fact is not
generally recognized, I add Plutarch s own words: Aristotle
says the Pythagoreans abstain from eating womb and heart,
the sea anemone, and certain other such things, but use all
other kinds. The sea anemone is a marine animal which is
called the nettle.
PORPH. V.P. 45. Pythagoras advised his followers to abstain
from other things as well, such as womb, the red mullet, the
sea anemone, and indeed almost all other sea creatures.
DIOG. LAERT. 8. i. 19 (18). Above all, he forbade them to eat
erythinus and black-tail ; they must also abstain from eating
heart or beans ; and Aristotle says that at times they must
abstain from eating womb or red mullet.
5 (R 2 190, R3 195)
DIOG. LAERT. 8. i. 33 (19). The Pythagoreans say we should
not pay equal honour to gods and to heroes, but to the gods
at all times, keeping a guard on our lips, in white raiment
and with pure bodies, and to the heroes only from midday
onwards. The purity is to be achieved by cleansing rites, by
baths, by lustral water, by having no stain from funeral
rites, from childbirth, 1 or from any infection, and by absten
tion from meat that has been nibbled at or has died by
disease, and from red mullets, black-tails, eggs and oviparous
animals, beans, and the other things that are forbidden to
those who perform the sacred rites in temples. Aristotle says,
in his work On the Pythagoreans, 2 that Pythagoras enjoined
abstention from beans either because they are like the privy
parts, or because they are like the gates of Hades (for this
is the only plant that has no joints), or because they are
destructive, or because they are like the nature of the uni
verse, or because they are oligarchical (being used in the
choice of rulers by lot). Things that fall from the table they
were told not to pick up to accustom them to eating with
moderation, or because such things marked the death of
someone. . . . They must not touch a white cock, because
this animal is sacred to Lunus and is a suppliant, and suppli
cation is a good thing. The cock was sacred to Lunus because
it announces the hours ; also, white is of the nature of the
good, black of the nature of the bad. 3 They were not to touch
1 Reading in R. 158. 8 after /oJSou? the words KCU Ae ^ovr, omitted by Rose.
2 Reading in R. 158. 13 after ApiaTorfXys the words eV r<2> irtpl rwv IJvOa-
yopfiaiv, with some MSS. and Diels.
3 Reading in R. 158. 21-24 KOI TO /*ev Aev/cdv . . . KUKQV before rwv IxOvcav . . .
, with Diels.
ON THE PYTHAGOREANS 139
any fish that was sacred, since it was not right that the same
dishes should be served to gods and to men, any more than
they should to freemen and to slaves. They must not break
the loaf (because in old times friends met over a single loaf,
as barbarians do to this day), nor must they divide the loaf
which brings them together. Others explain the rule by
reference to the judgement in Hades ; others say that dividing
the loaf would produce cowardice in war; others explain
that it is from the loaf that the universe starts. ... 36.
These things Alexander says he found in the Pythagorean
commentaries; Aristotle records the practices akin to
6 (R 2 191, R 3 196)
PORPH. I 7 . P. 41. Pythagoras said certain things in a mystical
and symbolic way, and Aristotle has recorded most of these ;
e.g. that he called the sea the tear of Cronos, the Bears 1 the
hands of Rhea, the Pleiades the lyre of the Muses, the planets
the dogs of Persephone ; the ringing sound of bronze when
struck was, he said, the voice of a divine being imprisoned in
AELIAN, V.H. 4.17. The origin of earthquakes was, Pytha
goras said, nothing but a concourse of the dead ; the rainbow
was the gleam of the sun, and the echo that often strikes on
our ears was the voice of mightier beings.
7 (R 2 192, R 3 197)
PORPH. V.P. 42. There was also another kind of symbol,
illustrated by what follows: Step not over a balance , i.e.
be not covetous : Poke not the fire with a sword , i.e. do not
vex with sharp words a man swollen with anger ; Pluck not
the crown , i.e. offend not against the laws, which are the
crowns of cities. Or again, Eat not heart , i.e. vex not your
self with grief: Sit not on the corn ration , i.e. live not in
idleness; When on a journey, turn not back , i.e. when you
are dying, cling not to this life; Walk not the highway ,
1 Ursa Major and Minor.
I 4 o FRAGMENTS
i.e. follow not the opinions of the many but pursue those of
the few and educated ; Receive not swallows in your house ,
i.e. do not make housemates of talkative men of uncontrolled
tongue ; Add to the burdens of the burdened, lighten them
not , i.e. contribute to no man s sloth, to every man s excel
lence ; Carry not images of the gods in your rings , i.e. make
not your thought and speech about the gods manifest and
obvious, nor lay it open to many ; Make your libations to
the gods at the handle of the cup , i.e. honour and celebrate
the gods with music ; for this rings through the handle.
JEROME, Adv. Libros Rufini 3. 39. To the Pythagoreans also
belong such sayings as Friends have everything in common
. . . and those riddles which Aristotle recounts with care in
his books : Leap not over a balance , i.e. go not beyond what
is just ; Poke not fire with a sword , i.e. vex not with abusive
words a mind swollen with anger; Never pluck a crown ,
i.e. preserve the laws of your cities ; Eat not heart , i.e. cast
sadness from your mind; When you have started out,
return not , i.e. desire not life itself after death ; Walk not
on the highway , i.e. follow not the errors of the multitude;
Take no swallow into your house , i.e. have not as house
mates garrulous and talkative men ; Place more burdens on
the burdened, help not those who lay burdens down , 1 i.e.
encourage those who press on to virtue, abandon those who
give themselves to ease.
8 (R 2 193, R 3 198)
MART. CAP. 7. 131 (Philosophy speaks). Although Aristotle,
one of my followers, reasoning from the fact that the unit
itself is one alone and wishes to be always sought after,
asserts that it is called Desire because it desires itself, since
it has nothing beyond itself and, never carried beyond itself
or linked with other things, turns its own ardours on itself.
9 (R 2 194, R3 199)
THEO. SM. Math, p. 21. 20 (Killer). The first division of numbers
they recognize is into two kinds, even and odd. ... 24. Some
1 Reading in R. 160. 25 superponendum onus, deponentibus.
ON THE PYTHAGOREANS 141
said i was the first odd number. ... 22. 5-9. But Aristotle
in his work On the Pythagoreans says that the One partakes
of the nature of both kinds ; for added to an even number it
makes an odd, and added to an odd an even, which it could
not have done if it had not shared in both natures ; and that
for this reason the One was called even-odd.
10 (R 2 195, R 3 200)
SIMP, in De Cael. 386. 9. The Pythagoreans reduced all anti
theses to two lists of opposites, the one worse, the other
better the list of goods and the list of evils. They rounded
off each list symbolically by the decad, as being the complete
number, and they took each of the ten antitheses as revealing
all its congeners within itself. Of the local positions they took
the right and the left . . . 19-23 and explained the other local
opposites in the light of these. Right, above, and before they
called good, and left, below, and behind evil, as Aristotle
himself related in his collection of Pythagorean tenets.
11 (R 2 196, R 3 2Ol)
STOB. 1. 18. i c (Wachsmuth and Hense). In the first book of his
work on the philosophy of Pythagoras Aristotle writes that
the heaven was one, and that time and breath and the void,
which divides for ever the regions of different things, were
drawn in from the infinite.
12 (R 2 197, R 3 202)
ALEX. APHR. in Metaph. 75. 15-17. Of the arrangement in the
heavens which the Pythagoreans assigned to the numbers,
Aristotle informs us in the second book of his work on the
doctrine of the Pythagoreans.
13 (R 2 198, R 3 203)
ALEX. APHR. in Metaph. 38. 8. Aristotle has shown what are
the likenesses that the Pythagoreans believed in between
numbers and the things that exist and come into being ;
assuming that reciprocity or equality is a property of justice
and finding it to exist in numbers, they said, for this reason,
that justice is the first square number ; for in every case the
first of a number of things that admit of the same definition
is most truly that which it is said to be. Now this number
some declared to be the number 4, because, being the first
square number, it is divided into equals and is itself equal
(being twice 2), while others declared it to be the number 9,
which is the first square number produced by multiplying
an odd number (3) by itself. Again, they said the number 7
was opportunity ; for natural things seem to have their per
fect seasons of birth and completion in terms of sevens, as
in the case of man. Men are born after seven months, they
begin to grow their teeth in seven months, they reach puberty
about the end of the second set of seven years, and grow
beards about the end of the third. The sun, too, since it is
itself thought to be (as he says) the cause of seasons, they
maintain to be established where resides the number 7,
which they identify with season ; for the sun holds the
seventh place among the ten bodies that move round the
earth or hearth of the universe ; it moves after the sphere
of the unwandering stars and the five spheres of the planets ;
after it come the moon, eighth, and the earth, ninth, and
after the earth the counter-earth. Since the number 7 neither
generates nor is generated by any of the numbers in the
decad, they identified it with Athene. For the number 2
generates 4, 3 generates 9, and 6, 4 generates 8, and 5
generates 10, and 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 are also themselves
generated, but 7 neither generates any number nor is gener
ated from any ; and so too Athene was motherless and ever-
virgin. Marriage, they said, was the number 5, because it is
the union of male and female, and according to them the
odd is male and the even female, and 5 is the first number
generated from the first even number, 2, and the first odd
number, 3 ; for the odd is for them (as I said) male, and the
even female. Reason (which was the name they gave to
soul) and substance they identified with the One. Because it
was unchanging, alike everywhere, and a ruling principle
they called reason a unit, or one ; but they also applied these
names to substance, because it is primary. Opinion they
ON THE PYTHAGOREANS 143
identified with the number 2 because it can move in two
directions; they also called it movement and epithesis. 1
Picking out such likenesses between things and numbers,
they assumed numbers to be the first principles of things,
saying that all things are composed of numbers.
But they also saw the concordant intervals to be con
stituted according to particular numbers, and said that
numbers were the first principles of these also; the octave
depends on the ratio 2:1, the fifth on the ratio 3 : 2, the
fourth on the ratio 4 : 3. They said, too, that the whole
universe is constructed in accordance with a certain harmony
... 39. 24-41. 15 because it consists of numbers and is con
structed in accordance with number and harmony. For the
bodies that move round the centre of the universe have their
distances in a certain ratio, and some move faster and others
slower, and in their movement the slower strike a deep note
and the faster a high one, and these notes, being propor
tionate to the distances, make the resultant sound har
monious ; and since they said number was the origin of this
harmony, they naturally made number the first principle of
the heavens and of the universe. For they thought the sun
to be, say, twice as far from the earth as the moon, Venus
to be three times as far, Mercury four times, and each of the
other heavenly bodies to be in a certain ratio, and the move
ment of the heavens to be harmonious, and the bodies that
move the greatest distance to move the fastest, those that
move the least distance the slowest, and the intermediate
bodies to move in proportion to the greatness of their circuit.
On the basis of these likenesses between things and numbers,
they supposed existing things both to be composed of num
bers and to be numbers.
Thinking numbers to be prior to nature as a whole and to
natural things (for nothing could either exist or be known
at all without number, while numbers could be known even
apart from other things), they laid it down that the elements
and first principles of numbers are the first principles of all
things. These principles were, as has been said, the even and
the odd, of which they thought the odd to be limited and
1 sc. the addition of i to i.
the even unlimited ; of numbers they thought the unit was
the first principle, composed of the even and the odd; for
the unit was at the same time even-odd, which he 1 used to
prove from its power of generating both odd and even
number ; added to an even it generates an odd, added to an
odd it generates an even.
As regards the agreements which they found between num
bers and concordant combinations on the one hand, and on
the other hand the attributes and parts of the heavens, they
took these for granted straight off, as being obvious, and
inferred that the heavens are composed of numbers and dis
play a concord. If any of the heavenly phenomena seemed
to fail to conform with numerical principles, they made the
necessary additions themselves and tried to fill the gap so
as to make their whole treatment of the matter self-consis
tent. Treating the decad straight off as the perfect number,
and seeing that in the visible world the moving spheres are
nine in number seven spheres of the planets, the eighth that
of the unwandering stars, the ninth the earth (for this, too,
they thought, moves in a circle about the resting hearth of
the universe, which according to them is fire) they added,
in their system, a counter-earth, which they supposed to
move in a direction opposite to that of the earth s movement,
and to be for that reason invisible to those on earth.
Aristotle speaks of these matters both in the De Caelo 2 and,
with greater precision, in his collection of Pythagorean doc
trines. They made out the arrangement of those bodies to be
harmonious by assuming that the ten moving bodies of which
the universe consists are at harmonic distances from each
other, and move in proportion to their distances (as Aristotle
has said before), some faster, others slower, and that, as they
move, the slower moving sound deeper notes and the faster
moving higher notes, and that by the harmonious propor
tions between these a harmonious note is produced, which,
however, we do not hear because we have grown up with it
from childhood. He has spoken of this also in the De Caelo,
and shown there that it is not true. That the even is for them
the indefinite and the odd the definite, and that these are
1 Pythagoras. 2 Omitting ^V in R. 162. 19, with Hayduck.
ON THE PYTHAGOREANS 145
the generating principles of the unit (for it is by derivation
from them that it is even-odd), and indeed of all number
(since the units in turn are the generating principles of the
numbers), and that the whole heavens, i.e. everything that
is in the heavens, in other words all existing things, are
number this he says here, but he has spoken of the subject
more fully in those other places.
14 (R 2 199, R 3 204)
SIMP, in De Caelo 511. 25. The Pythagoreans oppose this
view ; for this is what contrariwise means ; they do not say
that the earth is at the centre, but that in the centre of the
universe there is fire, and that about the centre the counter-
earth moves, being itself an earth but called a counter-earth
because it is on the opposite side to our earth. After the
counter-earth came our earth, itself also moving round the
centre, and after the earth the moon ; so Aristotle relates in
his work on the Pythagorean doctrines. 1 . . . 512. 12-14. For
this reason some call fire the tower of Zeus, as Aristotle him
self related in his work on the Pythagoreans, while others
call it the stronghold of Zeus (so Aristotle says here), or the
throne of Zeus (as other authors relate).
Cf. PROCL. in Eucl. p. 90. 14 (Friedlein). The Pythagoreans
thought fit to call the pole the seal of Rhea . . . 17-18 and
the centre of the universe the stronghold of Zeus.
Cf. PROCL. in Tim. p. 61 c, SIMP, in Phys. 1355. 8-9.
15 (R 2 200, R 3 205)
SIMP, in De Caelo, 392. 16-32. Aristotle says that the Pytha
goreans place us in the upper part and on the right side of
the universe, and those opposite to us in the lower part and
on the left side ; how can he say this if, as he himself relates
in the second book of his collection of Pythagorean tenets,
they say that one part of the whole universe is up and the
other down, the lower part right and the upper left, and that
1 Reading in R. 163. i eV ru> ntpi rutv nvOayoptKuiv, with Karsten.
I 4 6 FRAGMENTS
we are in the lower part ? Is it that he has used the words
upper and on the right here not in accordance with his
own view but with that of the Pythagoreans ? They coupled
up and before with right , down and behind with
left . But Alexander thinks that the statement in Aristotle s
collection of Pythagorean tenets has been altered by someone
and should be that the upper part of the universe is on the
right, the lower part on the left, and that we are in the upper
part, not in the lower as the text now runs ; in this way
Aristotle s original statement would agree with what he says
here, that we, who say we live in the lower part and therefore
on the left side (since the lower part is coupled with the left
side), are in opposition to the Pythagorean statement that
we live in the upper part and on the right side. The suggested
corruption of the text is very probable, since Aristotle knows
that the Pythagoreans coupled the higher position with the
right side, and the lower with the left.
THEM, in De Caelo, 96. 17-22. If, indeed, the Pythagoreans
say the upper part is that which is on the right side as
appears from Aristotle s criticism of them in his book against
the Pythagorean tenets, where he opposes those who con
tended that the higher region is on the right.
STOB. i. 26. 3. Some of the Pythagoreans, according to
Aristotle s account and the statement of Philippus of Opus,
say that the eclipse of the moon is due to the interposition,
sometimes of the earth, sometimes of the counter-earth. Of
the younger members of the school there are some who
thought it was due to distribution of the flame, which kindles
gradually and regularly until it gives the complete light of
full moon, and again diminishes correspondingly until the
time of conjunction, when it is completely extinguished.
ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARCHYTAS
I (R 3 206)
SIMP, in De Caelo, 296. 16-18. These things, then, Aristotle
knows. For this reason, in his epitome of Plato s Tir.iaeus
he writes: He says the universe is a generated universe ; for
he supposes that it is perceptible to sense, and that what is
perceptible has been generated, and what is intelligible has
not been generated.
2 (R 2 201, R 3 207)
DAMASC. Pr. 2. 172. 16-22 (Ruelle). It is better, therefore, to
stick to his distinction, treating as other , in accordance
with the Pythagorean custom and that of Plato himself,
things that have matter in their being, and matter itself ;
for this is how Plato uses the word other in the Phaedo, 1
saying that sensible forms are other and in things that are
other . Aristotle in his work on Archytas relates that Pytha
goras, too, called matter other , as being in flux and always
becoming different. So it is clear that Plato, too, defines in
this way the things that are other .
1 83 b.
I (R 2 2O2, R 3 208)
SIMP, in De Caelo, 294. 23-295. 26. Alexander adds that
those who say the universe is now in this state, now in that,
are ascribing to it change of quality, not generation and
destruction. Those who say the universe is generated and
perishable like any other composite thing, must be (he says)
the followers of Democritus. For as each other thing, accord
ing to them, comes into being and perishes, so does each of
the numberless universes. And, as in the case of other things
that which comes into being is not the same, except in kind,
as that which has perished, so too (they say) is it with the
universes. Now if the atoms remain the same, being immune
from alteration, clearly these thinkers also must be ascribing
to the worlds change of quality and not destruction, as
Empedocles and Heraclitus seem to do. A few words quoted
from Aristotle On Democritus will reveal the line of thought
of the Atomists:
Democritus thinks the nature of the eternal entities con
sists of small substances infinite in number; as a place for
them he supposes something else infinite in size, and to this
he applies the names "void", "nothing", and "the infinite",
while to each of the substances he applies the names "thing ",
"solid", 1 and "real". He thinks the substances are so small
as to escape our senses, but have all sorts of shapes and
figures, and differences of size. From these substances, as
from elements, are generated and compounded visible and
sensible masses. The substances are at variance and move
in the void because of their dissimilarity and the other afore
said differences, and as they move they impinge on each
other and are so completely interlocked that they touch one
another or get near one another ; but a single substance is
never in reality produced from them by this interlocking;
for it would be very naif to suppose that two or more things
1 Reading in R. 166. 5 ra> 8lv KO.I T< wcrru>, with Heiberg.
ON DEMOCRITUS 149
could ever become one. The fact that substances stay with
one another for some time the Atomists ascribe to the bodies
fitting into one another and catching hold of one another ;
for some of them are scalene, others hook-shaped, others
concave, others convex, and others have numberless other
differences. He thinks they cling to one another and remain
together until some stronger force arriving from the environ
ment shakes them asunder and separates them.
He ascribes the genesis and the separation opposed to it
not only to animals but also to plants and to worlds, and
comprehensively to all sensible bodies. If, then, genesis is
combination of atoms, and destruction separation of them,
then even according to Democritus genesis must be change
of quality. Indeed, Empedocles, too, says that that which
comes into being is not the same, except in kind, with that
which has perished, and yet Alexander says that Empedocles
assumes the existence of change of quality, not of coming
(a) = not in Rose. (b) = not in Walzer.
(c) = fuller quotation than Rose gives.
Ael. V.H. 2. 26 .
Aristox. Harm. 2. 30. 16-31. 3
4- i? 135.
al-Dailami, cod. Tub. Weiswei-
Asc. in Metaph. 77. 2-4 (a) .
ler 81 (a)
79. 7-10 (a) .
112. I6-I9 ( a > &)
in Metaph. 38. 8-41. 15 (c)
237. 11-14 (a)
55. 20-57. 28 (c) .
237. 11-13 (a)
59. 28-6O. 2 .
247. 17-19 (a)
Ath. 6 d
79- 3-83- 30 (c)
34 b .
83- 34-89. 7 (0
40 c-d ....
44 d .
97. 27-98. 24
117. 23-118. i (a, b)
250. 17-20 .
354 c .
250. 17-19 (a)
262. 18-26 .
429 f .
in Top. 5. 17-19
62. 30-63. 19
496 f .
242. 1-9 ...
555 d-556 a .
apud Eliam in Cat. 115. 3-5
564 b .
apud Simp, in Phys. 454.
641 b .
19-455. ii (a) .
674 6-675 a .
cod. Aya Sofia 4832, fol. 340
cod. Taimuriyye Falsafa 55
C. Jul. Pel. 4. 14. 72 (a) .
4. 15. 78 ...
Trin. 14. 9. 12 .
Amm. in Cat. 6. 25-7. 4 (c) .
14. 19. 26 .
13. 20-25 .
Apollon. Mirab. 6
Basil, Ep. 135
Apul. De Deo Soc. 20. 166-7 .
Consol. 3. 8
in Cat. i. 161 d-i62 a
De An. 4O4 b i6-24 (a, b)
404 b i6-2i (a)
Censor, c. 18. ii .
Chalc. in Tim. 208-9 (b, c) .
4O4 b i8-2i (a)
Metaph. ioo3 b 3 3- 1004*2 (a)
Acad. i. 7. 26 (a)
io5 4 a 29-32 (a)
Att. 4. 16. 2 .
Ph. 194*27-36 (a) .
12. 40. 2
1 94 a 35-36 ()
13- 19. 3-4
209 b n-i6 (a)
13. 28. 2
Poet. I454 b i5-i8 (a) .
Brut. 31. 120-1 (a) .
AUTHORS QUOTED 151
Diog. Laert. (cont.)
De Or. i. ii. 49 (a) .
2. 5. 46
3. 21. 80 (a) .
2. 6. 55
Div. ad Brut. i. 25. 53
3- 37 (25)
i. 30. 63 (a) .
3- 48 (32) -
Fam. 1.9. 23 (a)
Fin. 2. 13. 39-40
8. i. ii (9) .
2. 32. 106
8. i. 19 (18) .
8. i. 33-36 (19)
5. 5. 12-14 ()
8. 2. 51-52 (i)
8. 2. 57-58 (3)
Hortensius, fr. 35
8. 2. 57 (3)
fr. 81 (a) ...
8. 2. 63 (9) .
Inv. 2. 6 (a)
8. 2. 74 (n) .
Lucullus 38. 119 (a) .
9- 5- 25 (4)
N.D. i. 13. 33 .
9- 8. 53 (4) .
i. 38. 107 .
9- 8. 54 (5)
2. 15. 42
9. ii. 81 . . .
2. 16. 44
Diog. Oen. fr. 4 col. 1.7 col.
2. 20. 51-2 .
2- 37- 95-6 -
Dox. Gr. 432. 4-8 (a) .
Off. 2. 1 6. 56-7
Q. Fr. 3 .5. i .
in Cat. 114. 15-115. 5 (c) .
Rep. 3. 8. 12 .
114. 25-115. 12
Top. i. 3 (a) .
124. 3-6 (a) .
Tusc. i. 10. 22 (a)
i. 17. 41 (a, b)
133- 9-17 ()
i. 26. 65-27. 66 (a)
in Porph. 3. 17-23 .
i. 39. 94 (a, b)
Etymol. Magn. 722. 16-17
Eus. P.E. 14. 6. 9-10 (a)
4. 19- 43-20. 46
Cell. 3. ii. 7
5. 5. 12-14 ()
4. ii. 11-13
5. 10. 30 (a) .
Greg. Cor. Ad Hermog. c. 19 .
5. 13. 39 (a) .
Hist. Aug. 2. 97. 20-22.
5. 30. 85-31. 87 (a)
Horn. Opera, vol. 5. 244
5- 35- ioi .
Protr. i. 7. 4 (a)
Strom, i. 14. 60. 3
Comm.Math. 26. 79. 1-81.7 .
i. 14. 61. i .
26. 83. 6-22 .
6. 6. 53. 2-3 .
Myst. i. ii
6. 18. 162. 5 (a, b)
Clem. Rom. Recogn. 8. 15 (a, b)
Protr. 6. 37. 3-22 (a)
Cod. Marc. 257, f. 250 .
6. 37. 26-41. 5
Damasc. Pr. 2. 172. 16-22
7. 41. 15-43- 25 (a)
David, Proll. 9. 2-12
7. 43. 25-45. 3 (a) .
Demetr. Eloc. 28 .
8. 45. 4-47. 4
Dexippus in Cat. 33. 8-13
8. 47. 5-21 .
Dio Chr. Or. 53. i
8. 47. 21-48. 9
Diog. Laert. i Prooem. 8 (6) .
8. 48. 9-21 .
2- 5- 23 (7) .
9- 49- 3-52- 16 (a) .
2. 5. 26 (10) .
9. 52. 16-54. 5
Iambi. Protr. (cont.)
Philop. in De An. (cont.)
10. 54. 10-56. 12 (a)
141. 22-147. I0
ii. 56. 13-59- 18 (a)
186. 14-16 .
12. 59. 19-60. 15 (a)
in Nicom. Isagogen, i. i
V.P. 6. 30-31 .
in Ph. 515. 29-32 (a)
Jerome, Adv. Libras Rufini 3.
in Ph. 521. 9-15 (a) .
Pliny, N.H. 30. 3 (a) .
Aristid. 27. 2 .
/MS/. 2. 10. 24 (a, b) .
Dion 22. 3
3. 16 .
Mor. 115 b-e .
329 b .
Macr. 5. 18. 16-19
370 c (a)
7. 3. 23
382 d-e (a, 6)
Mart. Cap. 5. 44 (b)
447 1-448 a (a)
477 c-f (a) .
Michael Psellus, Schol. ad Joh.
Climacum 6. 171 (a) .
503 6-504 b .
527 a .
612 d e
Nemes. De Nat. Horn. ch. 34
650 a .
Nonius 394. 2628
651 1-652 a (a)
733 c (b)
734 d .
in Ale. p. 144 .
760 6-761 b .
in Phd. 26. 22-27. 4
173. 20-30 .
908 f (a, b) .
1 80. 22-23 ( a > b)
1040 e .
1115 b-c (a) .
239. 19-21 .
Pap. Here. 1020 (a)
1118 c .
Pap. Oxyrrh. 666
1138 c-ii4o b
Pel. 3. i
Aet. Mundi 3. 10-11
18. 4 .
6. 28-27. 34
apud Stob. 3. 21. 26 .
in De Int. apud Boeth. in
Leg. Alleg. 3. 32. 97-99
De Int. i. i. p. 27
De Plant. 34. 141-40. 166 .
De Praem. et Poen. 7. 40-46
De Spec. Leg. i. 35. 185-36.
Prise. Lydus. 41. 16-42. 3
De Ira, p. 65. 31-66. 2
Pap. Here. 3, p. 41, col. 211
apud Philop. De Aet.
Mundi, 31. 17-32. 8 .
Piet. 7 b 4-8 (a, b)
in Eucl., 28. 13-22 .
Voll. Rhet. 2. 175 fr. 15. 1-6
in Remp. i. 42. 250. 26
2. 349. 13-26
in De An. 75. 34-76. i (a, b)
in Tim. 61 c
75- 34-76. i
Ps. -Alex, in Metaph. 615. 14-
Simp. in Cat. (cont.)
407. 15-20 .
642. 38-643. 3 (a) .
409. 15-41 30
in De An. 28. 7-9 (a)
777. 16-21 (a, 6) .
28. 7-9 ...
836. 34-837- 3
Ps.-Amm. in Cat. 56.
221. 20-33 .
in De Caelo
13 a (a)
288. 31-289. 2 (a, b)
P.-Galen. Phil. Hist. c. 35 (a, b)
294. 23-295. 26
I 4 8
Ps.-Jul. Ep. 391 b-c
296. 16-18 .
Ps. Plu. Vit. Horn. 3-4
I 4 I
Quint. /MS/. 2. 17. 1-14
392. 16-32 .
3- * 13
485. 19-22 .
10. I. 83 (a) .
511. 25-512. 14
in Aristoph. Pacem. I. 772
in An. Pr., cod. Paris. 2064,
in Ph. 151. 6-19 (c) .
453- 25-454- 19
454- 19-455- ii ()
fol. 263 a .
in Cat. 33 b 25-33
in Dion. Thrac. 116. 13-16
in Proverb. Sal. cod. Paris.
503. 10-15 ()
542. Q-I2 (a)
545- 23-25 ()
1355- 8-9 (a)
174, fol. 460
in Theocr. 3. 21
Sophon. in De An. 25. 4-8 (a) .
Stob. i. 18. ic
i. 26. 3
Brev. Vit. i. 2. (a, b)
i- 43 ( a )
De Ira i. 3. 3 .
3- 3- 2 5
I. 7. I .
4. 29 A 24
I. 9- 2 .
4- 29 A 25
I. 17. I
4- 29 c 52
3- 3- i
4- 32- 21
Q.N. 7. 30
Serv. in Aen. 6. 448 (a, fe)
Sext. Emp. Dognt. i. 6-7
Geom. 57 .
PAys. i. 20-23
Strabo i. 4. 9, p. C66 .
14. 5. 9, p. 672 (a)
Suet. De Blasph. p. 416
Suidas, s.v. Evpvparos
i. 412 .
Calvit. Enc. 22. 85 c .
2. 45-46 (a)
Pyrr. i. 84
Dio. 10. 48 a
Syr. in Metaph. 61. 12-17 (a)
120. 33-121. 4
in Cat. 4. 14-22 (a) .
159- 33-i6o. 5
64. 18-65. 10
65. 4-8 (a) .
Tac. Dial. 16. 7 (a)
382. 7-10 (a)
Tert. De An. 46 (a, b) .
387. 17-388. 14
388. 21-389. 10
in De An. 24. 13-25. 25
389. 25-390. 7
106. 29-107. 5
390. 19-25 .
in De Caelo 96. 17-22
402. 26-403. 24
in Ph. 106. 21-23 (a)
Or. 26 d-27 b . . 101
107 c-d ... 66
295 c-d ... 24
319 c . . . . 5
Theo. Sm. 21. 20-22. 9 .140
Theon, Prog. i. 165 . . 103
Vit. Arist. Marc. 427. 3-7 . 7*
43- I5-43I- 2 . . 65
433. 10-15 .116
vulgo . . . . 7
Vitae Homeri in Homeri Opera,
ed. Allen, 5. 244. 247,
251-2 ... 77
ROSE S NUMBERING OF FRAGMENTS
6 5 8
ROSE, V., Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus, 1863.
, Arislotelis qui ferebantur Librorum Fragmenta .
, Aristotelis qui ferebantur Librorum Fragmenta, 1886.
HEITZ, E., Aristotelis Fragmenta, 1872.
WALZER, R., Aristotelis Dialogorum Fragmenta, 1934.
ALBEGGIANI, F., Aristotele e Epicure, in Logos, 1937, 422-4.
BERNAYS, J., Aus dem aristotelischen Dialog Eudemos, in Rhein.
Mus., 1861, 236-46.
, Die Dialoge des Aristoteles, 1863.
BIDEZ, J., A propos d un Fragment retrouve de 1 Aristote perdu, in
Bull, de la Cl. des Lettres de VAcad. Roy. de Belgique, 1942, 201-30,
, Hermias d Atarnee, ibid., 1943, 133-46.
, Un Singulier Naufrage litteraire dans I antiquitd, 1943.
BIGNONE, E. Nuove ricerche e testimonianze sulla prima dottrina e
sulle opere perdute di Aristotele attraverso gli scritti degli
Epicurei, in Rivista di Filologia, 1933, 16-43, 155-76.
, Nuove ricerche sulla formazione filosofica di Epicuro, in
Atene e Roma, 1933, I 3~ O2 an d Annali della R. Scuola Normale
Superiore di Pisa, 1933, 273-300, 333-58, and 1934, 289-330.
, Alia riconquista dell Aristotele perduto, in Giornale critico della
Filosofia italiana, 1934, 13-58.
, La polemica di Epicuro in difesa dell edonismo, contro le opere
perdute di Aristotele e della scuola platonico-peripatetica, in
Atene e Roma, 1934, 3-62, 129-61.
, La formazione dell etica Epicurea attraverso la polemica con il
primo Aristotele e la scuola Platonico-Aristotelica, ibid., 1934,
217-311, and 1935, 3-52.
, Una nuova meta nella riconquista dell Aristotele perduto, in
Civiltd Moderna, 1935, 117 ff.
, II Simposio di Aristotele e quello di Epicuro, in Atti del IV
Congresso intern, di Papirologia, 1936, 123-58.
, L Aristotele perduto e la Formazione filosofica di Epicuro, 2 vols.
, Nuove testimonianze e frammenti del Protrettico di Aristotele,
in Riv. di Fil. Class., 1936, 225-37.
, Chiarimenti e aggiunte all Aristotele perduto, in Atene e Roma,
, Conferme ed aggiunte all Aristotele perduto, in Ann. de I lnst.
de Phil., 1937, 87-116.
, Importanti conferme all Aristotele perduto, in Atne e Roma,
BIGNONE, E., Aristotele e Diogene di Enoanda, ibid., 1938, 214-32.
, Postilla aristotelica sulla dottrina dell endelecheia, ibid., 1940,
, Seneca, Marco Aurelio e il Protrettico di Aristotele, in Ann. d.
Sc. Norm. Sup. di Pisa, 1940, 241-9.
BOURNOT, W. Platonica Aristotelis Opuscula, Putbus, 1853.
BVWATER, I., On a lost dialogue of Aristotle [the Protrepticus], in
Journal of Philol., 1869, 55-69.
, Aristotle s dialogue On Philosophy, ibid., 1877, 64-87.
CAPONE-BRAGA, G., Aristotele, Epicure e Diogene di Enoanda, in
Atene e Roma, 1940, 35-47.
CATAUDELLA, Q., Nuove ricerche sull Anonimo di Giamblico e sulla
composizione del Protrettico, in R. Accad. d. Linzei, Rendici cl. sc.
mor., 1937-8, 182-210.
COURCELLE, P., Les Lettres grecques en Occident, de Macrobe d Cassio-
DIELS, H., Uber die exoterischen Reden des Aristoteles, Ber. Bert.
Akad., 1883, 477-94-
, Zu Aristoteles Protreptikos u. Cicero s Hortensius, in Archiv f.
Gesch. d. Philos., 1888, 477-97.
DYROFF, A., t)ber Arist. Entwicklung, in Festgabefiir Georgv. Hertling,
EINARSON, B., On a supposed pseudo-Aristotelian treatise on the
soul, in Class. Philol., 1933, 129-30.
, Aristotle s Protrepticus and the structure of the Epinomis,
in Trans, of the Amer. Philos. Association, 1936, 261-85.
FESTUGIERE, A. J., L Ideal religieux des Grecs et I Evangile, 1932,
, La Revelation d Hermes Trismegiste, 1949, ii. 219-59, 587-91
(on the De Philosophia).
GADAMER, H. Der aristotelische Protreptikos u. d. entwicklungs-
geschichtliche Betrachtung d. Arist. Ethik, in Hermes, 1928,
GARIN, E., EvStXexfta e EvrfXe^da nelle discussioni umanistiche,
in Atene e Roma, 1937, 177-87.
GUTHRIE, W. K. C., The Development of Aristotle s Theology, in
Cl. Qu., 1933, 161-71.
HARDER, R., Ocellus Lucanus, 1926, pp. 22, 122-5.
HARTLICH, De exhortationibus a Graecis Romanisque scriptis histo-
ria, in Leipz. Stud. z. klass. Philol., 1889, 236-72.
HEITZ, E., Die verlorenen Schriften des Aristoteles, 1865.
HIRZEL, R., Uber den Protreptikos des Arist., in Hermes, 1876, 61-100.
, Ueber Entelechie u. Endelechie, in Rhein. A/MS., 1884, 169-208.
JAEGER, W., Aristoteles: Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwick
, trans, by R. Robinson, 1934, 1948.
JAEGER, W., y A-rrapxa.i, in Hermes, 1929, 22-23.
KAIL, A., De Aristotelis dialogis, qui inscribuntur De Philosophia et
Eudemus, in Dissert. Philol. Vindob., 1913, 67-99.
KARPP, H., Die Schrift des Aristoteles Flepl /Setov, in Hermes, 1933,
LAZZATI, G., L Aristotele perduto e gli scrittori cristiani, in Pubbt.
d. Univ. Catt., 1938.
MANSION, S., Deux ecrits de jeunesse d Aristote sur la doctrine des
Idees, in Rev. Philos. de Louvain, 1950, 398-416.
MARIOTTI, S., Un passo di Servio e I Eudemo di Aristotele, in Studi
ital di Filol. CL, 1938, 83-85.
, Cicerone e una fonte stoica dipendente da Aristotele, in Stud.
ital. di Filol. CL, 1940, 73-76.
, Nuove testimonianze ed echi dell Aristotele giovanile, in Atene
e Roma, 1940, 48-60.
, La quinta essentia nell Aristotele perd. e nell. Accademia, in
Riv. di Filol., 1940, 179-89.
MUGNIER, H., La Theorie du premier Moteur et revolution de la
Pensee aristotelicienne, 1930.
NEEDLER, M. C., The Aristotelian Protrepticus and the developmen
tal treatment of the Aristotelian ethics, in Class. Phil., 1928,
NORSA, M., Un frammento di fisica aristotelica in uno papiro fioren-
tino, in Annali della R. Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, 1938,
OELLACHER, H., Griechische literarische papyri aus der Papyrus-
sammlung Erzherzog Rainer in Wien, in Etudes de Papyrologie,
ORTH, E., Ein neues aristotel. fragment, in Philol. Wochenschr., 1934,
PHILITPSON, R., II Flepi /8e<Sv di Aristotele, in Riv. di Filol., 1936,
, Diogene di Enoanda e Aristotele, ibid., 1938, 235-52.
POHLENZ, M., Review of Walzer s Aristotelis Dialogorum Fragmenta,
in Gott. Gelehrte Anzeiger, 1936, 514-31.
ROSTAGNI, A., II dialogo Ucpl nonjT&v, in Riv. di Fil., 1926, 433-70,
and 1927, 145-73-
, Qualche osservazioni supra un papiro estetico-letterario
attribuito ad Aristotele, ibid., I93 8 , 295-7.
SHOREY, P., Les Idees de Platon et 1 evolution d Aristote, in Melanges
Paul Thomas, 1930, 133-49.
VON ARNIM, H., Quellenstudien zu Philo von Alexandria, 1888, pp. 5-8.
VON DER MUHLL, P., Isokrates u. d. Protreptikos des Aristoteles, in
Philol., 1941, 259-65.
WALZER, R., Un frammento nuovo di Aristotele, in Studi ital. di
Filol. Class., 1937, 125-37.
WALZKR, R., Fragmenta graeca in litteris arabicis, in Journal of the
Royal Asiatic Society, 1939, 407-22.
WASZINK, J. H., Traces of Aristotle s lost dialogues in Tertullian, in
Vigiliae Christianae, 1947.
, art. Aristoteles, in Reallexikon f. Antike u. Christentum, i.
WILPERT, P., Reste verlorener aristotelischer aristotelesschriften bei
Alexander von Aphrodisias, in Hermes, 1940, 369-96.
, P., Neue Fragmente aus Flepi Tayadov, in Hermes, 1941, 225-50.
, Zwei aristotelische Friihschriften iiber die Ideenlehre. 1949.
ZURCHER, J., Aristoteles Werk u. Gcist, 1952, pp. 21-31.
Alexander the Great, ix. xi, 65, 67.
Alexander, viii, ix, x, xi, 67.
Archytas, IOQ-IO, 147.
Archytas. On the Philosophy of, 147.
Aristotle s style, i, 2, 3, 5, 6, Q2-93 :
open-mindedness, 4 ; attitude to
Art and nature, 43-46.
Bignone, E., xii.
Cicero, viii, x, xii.
Colonists, On, viii, ix.
Contraries, On, 109-14.
Corinthian dialogue, viii, 24.
Democritus, On, 148-9.
Dialogues, Aristotle s, vii-xii, 1-6.
Diogenes Laertius, vii, viii, xi.
Dreams, 55~5 6 -
Drinking and Drunkenness, 8-14.
Drunkenness, On, vii, n. 7.
Education, On, viii, ix, 64.
Einarson, B., x.
Empedocles, 15, 72-73.
Eroticus, vii, ix, 25-26.
Eudemus, vii, n. 8, viii, ix, xi, xii,
Euthydemus, x, n. i.
Exoteric works, 5, 6.
Fifth element (aKarovofjiaarov) , 98-
Forms, Platonic, 22.
Good, On the, viii, xi, 115-23.
Good Birth, On, vii, viii, ix, 59-62.
Great year, 55.
Gryllus, vii, 7.
Gryllus, vii, ix, 7.
Hesychius, vii, viii, xi.
Homer, 8-9, 72, 76-77, 84-85.
Hortensius, viii, 27.
Howald, E., vii.
Ideal numbers, xi.
Ideas, Platonic, xi, xii, 117, 124-33.
Ideas, On, xi, xii, 124-33.
Indefinite dyad, 117-21, 123.
I socrates, x.
Jaeger, W., ix, xi, xii.
Justice, On, vii, ix, 100-2.
Kingship, On, viii, ix, x, xi, 65-66.
Mathematics, 30-31, 34.
Menexenus, vii, ix.
Mysteries, the, 87.
Nerinthus, vii, viii, ix, 24.
One and indefinite dyad, 117-21,
123; One and Plurality, 122.
Parts of speech, 106.
Phaedo, x, n. i.
Philosophy, 27-30, 33-34, 37. 52-
Philosophy, On, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii,
Plato, ix, x, xi, 74, 82-84, 88,
Pleasure, On, viii, ix, 63.
Poets, On, vii, viii, ix, 72-77.
Politicus, vii, viii, ix, x, 68-71.
Prayer, On, vii, ix, 58.
Problems, On, 104.
Protrepticus, vii, viii, ix, x, n. i, xii,
Pythagoreans and numbers, 117,
140-5; and cosmology, 145-6.
Pythagoreans, On the, xii, 134-46.
Religion, origin of, 84-87.
Rhetoric, On, vii, 7.
Rose, V., xi, xii.
Sophistes, vii, ix, 15.
Soul and body, 17-22, 32, 34.
Soul, On, vii, viii, 16-23.
Symposium, vii, ix, 814.
Third man , 129.
Von der Muhll, P., x.
Walzer, R., xii.
Wealth, On, vii, ix, 57.
Wilpert, P., xi, xii.
World, ungenerated and imperish
B 407 .S6 1910 v.12 SMC
Ar i stot 1e.
The works of Aristotle